Vol. 80 Wednesday, 

No. 145 July 29, 2015 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral 

Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45280 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1042; FRL–9928–71–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ90 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral 

Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the 

residual risk and technology reviews 

(RTR) conducted for the Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source categories 

regulated under national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP). Under this action, we are 

establishing pollutant-specific 

emissions limits for hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) that were previously 

regulated (under a surrogate) and for 

HAP that were previously unregulated. 

This action finalizes first-time generally 

available control technologies (GACT) 

standards for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities that are area 

sources. We are also amending 

regulatory provisions related to 

emissions during periods of startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); 

adding requirements for reporting of 

performance testing through the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); and 

making several minor clarifications and 

corrections. The revisions in these final 

rules increase the level of emissions 

control and environmental protection 

provided by the Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing NESHAP. 

DATES: This final action is effective on 

July 29, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

two dockets for this action under Docket 

ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 (for 

40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD) and EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–1042 (for 40 CFR part 

63, subparts NNN and NN). All 

documents in these dockets are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room Number 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this final action, contact 

Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D 234–04), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

5167; fax number: (919) 541–5600; and 

email address: fairchild.susan@epa.gov. 

For specific information regarding the 

risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. 

Chris Sarsony, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division (C539– 

02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–4843; fax number: 

(919) 541–0840; and email address: 

sarsony.chris@epa.gov. For information 

about the applicability of the NESHAP 

to a particular entity, contact Ms. Sara 

Ayres, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Mail Code E–19J, Chicago, IL 60604– 

3507; telephone number: (312) 343– 

6266; and email address: ayres.sara@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and 

Abbreviations. We use multiple 

acronyms and terms in this preamble. 

While this list may not be exhaustive, to 

ease the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the EPA defines the 

following terms and acronyms here: 

ADAF Age-dependent adjustment factors 

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

APA Administrative Procedures Act 

BDL Below detection limit 

BFS Batch Formulation System 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CA–REL California reference exposure level 

CBI Confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CEMS Continuous emission monitoring 

system 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO Carbon monoxide 

COS Carbonyl sulfide 

CPMS Continuous parameter monitoring 

system 

Cr Chromium 

CRA Congressional Review Act 

CRT Cathode ray tube 

DESP Dry electrostatic precipitator 

dscm Dry standard cubic meters 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ESP Electrostatic precipitator 

FA Flame attenuation 

FR Federal Register 

GACT Generally available control 

technology 

HAP Hazardous air pollutants 

HCl Hydrogen chloride 

HEPA High efficiency particulate air 

HF Hydrogen fluoride 

HQ Hazard quotient 

ICR Information collection request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

Lb/ton Pounds per ton 

LOI Loss on ignition 

MACT Maximum achievable control 

technology 

MDL Minimum detection limit 

MIR Maximum individual risk 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAIMA North American Insulation 

Manufacturers Association 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NOX Nitrogen oxide 

NPV Net present value 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSSN National Standards Systems Network 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PB–HAP Persistent and BioaccumulativeHAP 

PM Particulate matter 

ppm Parts per million 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RACT/BACT/LAER Reasonably Available 

Control Technology/Best Available Control 

Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission 

Rate 

RCRA Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act 

RDL Representative detection limit 

REL Recommended exposure limit 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

RS Rotary spin 

RTR Risk and Technology Review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SBAR Small Business Analytical Review 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Flexibility Act 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SSM Startup, shutdown, malfunction 

TOSHI Target organ specific hazard index 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL Upper prediction limit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45281 

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards 

Background Information. On 

November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72770), the 

EPA proposed revisions to the Mineral 

Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing NESHAP based on our 

RTR under Clean Air Act (CAA) 

sections 112(f)(2) and (d)(6). We 

proposed chromium compounds 

emissions limits for wool fiberglass 

furnaces at major sources after finding 

that chromium refractories used to 

construct furnaces degrade with age and 

emit continuously-increasing levels of 

chromium compounds. These findings 

were the result of emissions testing 

conducted on these types of furnaces 

indicating significant amounts (550 

pounds) of chromium emissions, 93 

percent of which was in the hexavalent 

(most toxic) form. The furnaces tested 

were considered representative of all 

furnaces at each facility. In the 

November 2011 proposal, we also 

announced that we had already issued 

a new information collection request 

(ICR) to the wool fiberglass industry to 

collect data on chromium emissions and 

chromium refractory use at all operating 

wool fiberglass furnaces with the intent 

of regulating area sources in a future 

action. 

In the November 2011 proposal we 

also proposed to discontinue using 

formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol 

and methanol in both the Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source categories and to 

discontinue using carbon monoxide 

(CO) as a surrogate for carbonyl sulfide 

(COS) in the Mineral Wool Production 

source category. This revision was 

proposed because we found that the 

surrogate for each pollutant is not 

necessarily a reasonable representation 

of the pollutant-specific emissions for 

these source categories (e.g., 

formaldehyde is not invariably present 

in the binder formulation). We proposed 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards under 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the 

HAP phenol and methanol in both 

source categories, and COS in the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category. We also proposed MACT 

standards for hydrogen fluoride (HF) 

and hydrochloric acid (HCl), which are 

emitted from these source categories, 

but were not regulated under the MACT 

standard. 

On April 15, 2013 (78 FR 22370), the 

EPA issued a supplemental proposal 

that was based on comments to the 

November 2011 proposal and new 

information on processes in both source 

categories. New emissions test data for 

all wool fiberglass furnaces across the 

industry showed that the same types of 

furnaces were in operation at both major 

and area sources, but that the emissions 

profile of electric furnaces differed from 

that of gas-fired furnaces (i.e., emissions 

that could endanger public health). In 

that notice, we listed wool fiberglass 

manufacturing area sources, and 

proposed chromium emission limits for 

gas-fired wool fiberglass furnaces at area 

sources, and announced that the 

chromium limits at major sources would 

be specific to gas-fired furnaces (such as 

air-gas and oxyfuel furnaces) and not 

electric furnaces (such as cold-top and 

steel shell furnaces). 

On November 13, 2014 (79 FR 68012), 

the EPA issued a second supplemental 

proposal to explain changes to 

previously proposed emissions limits 

for sources in these source categories. 

We proposed work practice standards 

under CAA section 112(h) in lieu of 

certain emissions limits, and clarified 

our use of the upper predictive limit 

(UPL) in setting MACT floors. In this 

action, we are finalizing decisions and 

revisions for these rules. We summarize 

some of the more significant comments 

we received regarding the proposed 

rules and provide our responses in this 

preamble. A summary of all other public 

comments on the proposal and the 

EPA’s responses to those comments is 

available in the memorandum, 

‘‘National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing (Risk and Technology 

Review)—Summary of Public 

Comments and Responses’’ (Docket ID 

Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 and 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). ‘‘Trackchanges’’ versions of the regulatory 

language that incorporates the changes 

in this action are available in the 

respective dockets. 

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 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is the Mineral Wool Production 

source category and how does the 

NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from 

the source category? 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category in our November 25, 2011 

proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental 

proposal; and November 13, 2014 

supplemental proposal? 

D. What is the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category and how 

does the NESHAP regulate HAP 

emissions from the source category? 

E. What changes did we propose for major 

sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category in our 

November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 

2013 supplemental proposal; and 

November 13, 2014 supplemental 

proposal? 

F. What did we propose for area sources in 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category in our November 25, 

2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 

supplemental proposal; and November 

13, 2014 supplemental proposal? 

III. What is Included in the Final Mineral 

Wool Production Rule? 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the Mineral 

Wool Production source category? 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category? 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3) for the Mineral Wool Production 

source category? 

D. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup and shutdown for the Mineral 

Wool Production source category? 

E. What other changes have been made to 

the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP? 

F. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the new MACT standards for the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category? 

G. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category? 

A. Residual Risk Review for the Mineral 

Wool Production Source Category 

B. Technology Review for the Mineral 

Wool Production Source Category 

C. MACT Standards for Pollutants 

Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate 

and Previously Unregulated Pollutants 

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Provisions for the Mineral Wool 

Production Source Category 

E. Other Changes Made to the Mineral 

Wool Production NESHAP 

V. What is Included in the Final Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for major 

sources? 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) 

source category? 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major 

sources) source category? 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3) for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing (major sources) source 

category? 

D. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45282 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major 

sources) source category? 

E. What are the final rule amendments for 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

(major sources) source category 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup and shutdown? 

F. What other changes have been made to 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP (major sources)? 

G. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards? 

H. What is the status of the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing MACT standard 

amendments under CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and (3) for RS Manufacturing 

Lines? 

I. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing NESHAP? 

VI. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category (major sources)? 

A. Residual Risk Review for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 

Category (Major Sources) 

B. Technology Review for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 

Category (Major Sources) 

C. MACT Standards for Pollutants 

Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate 

and Previously Unregulated Pollutants 

for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

Source Category (Major Sources) 

D. Work Practice Standards for HCl and HF 

Emissions From Furnaces in the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 

Category (Major Sources) 

E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Provisions for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Source Category (Major 

and Area Sources) 

F. Other Changes Made to the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP 

(Major and Area Sources) 

VII. What is included in the Final Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for area 

sources? 

A. Generally Available Control Technology 

(GACT) Analysis for Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Area Sources 

B. What are the final requirements for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area 

sources? 

C. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards for Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources? 

D. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA for Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area sources? 

VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and 

Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected facilities? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

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 (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

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 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL

SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY

THIS FINAL ACTION

NESHAP and source 

category NAICSa code 

Mineral Wool Production ...... 327993 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing ................................. 327993 

a North American Industry Classification 

System. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by the final 

action for the source categories listed. 

To determine whether your facility is 

affected, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in the appropriate 

NESHAP. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of any aspect 

of this NESHAP, please contact the 

appropriate person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

Internet through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a 

forum for information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. Following signature 

by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will 

post a copy of this final action at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/woolfib/

woolfipg and at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/minwool/minwopg. Following 

publication in the Federal Register, the 

EPA will post the Federal Register 

version and key technical documents at 

this same Web site. 

Additional information is available on 

the RTR Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

This information includes an overview 

of the RTR program, links to project 

Web sites for the RTR source categories 

and detailed emissions and other data 

we used as inputs to the risk 

assessments. 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial 

review of this final action is available 

only by filing a petition for review in 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by 

September 28, 2015. Under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established 

by this final rule may not be challenged 

separately in any civil or criminal 

proceedings brought by the EPA to 

enforce the requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

the EPA to reconsider the rule ‘‘[i]f the 

person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to the Administrator that it 

was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration 

should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

EPA, WJC West Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, with a copy to both the 

person(s) listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, 

and the Associate General Counsel for 

the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office 

of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), 

U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45283 

1The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this 

approach of implementing CAA section 

112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 

(D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA determines that the 

existing technology-based standards provide an 

’ample margin of safety,’ then the Agency is free to 

readopt those standards during the residual risk 

rulemaking.’’). 

2For EPA’s document on the Urban Air Toxics 

Strategy, see 64 FR 38706–38715–716 (July 19, 

1999). 

3For the listing documents of the Strategy, see 64 

FR 38075, 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. 4We have made several revisions to the CAA 

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. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of HAP from stationary 

sources. In the first stage, we must 

identify categories of sources emitting 

one or more of the HAP listed in CAA 

section 112(b) and then promulgate 

technology-based NESHAP for those 

sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that 

emit, or have the potential to emit, any 

single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year 

or more, or 25 tons per year or more of 

any combination of HAP. For major 

sources, these standards are commonly 

referred to as maximum achievable 

control technology or MACT standards 

and must reflect the maximum degree of 

emission reductions of HAP achievable 

(after considering cost, energy 

requirements, and non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts). In 

developing MACT standards, CAA 

section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to 

consider the application of measures, 

processes, methods, systems or 

techniques, including but not limited to 

those that reduce the volume of or 

eliminate HAP emissions through 

process changes, substitution of 

materials, or other modifications; 

enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or 

treat HAP when released from a process, 

stack, storage, or fugitive emissions 

point; are design, equipment, work 

practice, or operational standards; or 

any combination of the above. 

For these MACT standards, the statute 

specifies certain minimum stringency 

requirements, which are referred to as 

MACT floor requirements, and which 

may not be based on cost 

considerations. See CAA section 

112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT 

floor cannot be less stringent than the 

emission control achieved in practice by 

the best-controlled similar source. The 

MACT standards for existing sources 

can be less stringent than floors for new 

sources, but they cannot be less 

stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor, under CAA section 

112(d)(2). We may establish standards 

more stringent than the floor, based on 

the consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

In the second stage of the regulatory 

process, the CAA requires the EPA to 

undertake two different analyses, which 

we refer to as the technology review and 

the residual risk review. Under the 

technology review, we must review the 

technology-based standards and revise 

them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years, pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the 

residual risk review, we must evaluate 

the risk to public health remaining after 

application of the technology-based 

standards and revise the standards, if 

necessary, to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health or to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect. 

The residual risk review is required 

within 8 years after promulgation of the 

technology-based standards, pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f). In conducting the 

residual risk review, if the EPA 

determines that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, it is not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(f).1 For more 

information on the statutory authority 

for this rule, see the November 25, 2011, 

proposal (76 FR 72773). 

CAA sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and 

(k)(3) address regulation of area sources. 

Collectively, these sections are the basis 

of the Area Source Program under the 

Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy).2

Area sources are those that emit less 

than the major source threshold of HAP 

(i.e., less than 10 tons per year of a 

single pollutant or 25 tons per year of 

a combination of HAP. Under the 

Strategy, we must regulate emissions of 

the 30 most toxic HAP emitted by area 

sources, based on generally available 

control technology (GACT), at a 

minimum. These provisions do not 

require the EPA to regulate all HAP 

from all HAP-emitting processes as we 

must do when setting MACT standards. 

On April 15, 2013, consistent with the 

Strategy, the agency added gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces located at area 

sources to the source category list 3 4 and 

proposed emissions standards for 

particulate matter (PM) and chromium 

compounds from these sources at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities (78 

FR 22370). On November 13, 2014, we 

withdrew our previously proposed 

GACT limits for PM and proposed to 

only require total chromium compounds 

emissions limits for these sources. 

Reduction of PM is accomplished 

through chromium reductions because 

chromium is the toxic pollutant 

entrained within PM that is emitted by 

these sources. We are finalizing GACT 

limits for chromium compound 

emissions for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area source category. 

With this regulation, pursuant to CAA 

sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), the 

agency will have subjected additional 

sources to regulation for the urban metal 

HAP chromium compounds, which is 

wholly consistent with the goals of the 

Strategy. For more information on the 

statutory authority for this rule, see the 

November 25, 2011, supplemental 

proposal (76 FR 72770), the April 15, 

2013, supplemental proposal (78 FR 

22375–22376), and the November 13, 

2014, supplemental proposal (79 FR 

68012). 

B. What is the Mineral Wool Production 

source category and how does the 

NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from 

the source category? 

The EPA promulgated the Mineral 

Wool Production NESHAP on June 1, 

1999 (64 FR 29490). The standards are 

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

DDD. The Mineral Wool Production 

industry consists of facilities that 

produce mineral wool fiber from slag, 

rock, or other materials, excluding sand 

or glass. The source category covered by 

this MACT standard currently consists 

of eight facilities. 

Mineral wool is a material used 

mainly for thermal and acoustical 

insulation. This category includes, but 

is not limited to, the following process 

units: A cupola furnace for melting the 

mineral charge; a blow chamber in 

which air and, in some cases, a binder 

are drawn over the fibers, forming them 

to a screen; a curing oven to bond the 

fibers; and a cooling compartment. The 

1999 NESHAP rule set emissions limits 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45284 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

for PM from new and existing cupolas, 

CO from new cupolas, and 

formaldehyde from new and existing 

curing ovens. 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category in our November 25, 2011 

proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental 

proposal; and November 13, 2014 

supplemental proposal? 

On November 25, 2011, the EPA 

published a proposed rule for the 

Mineral Wool Production NESHAP, 40 

CFR part 63, subpart DDD, that 

proposed RTR amendments to this 

standard under CAA sections 112(d)(6) 

and (f)(2). In that proposal, we stated 

that maximum individual risk (MIR) for 

cancer was 4-in-1 million based on 

available test data for actual emissions 

and 10-in-1 million based on the MACTallowable emission limits of the rule. 

We proposed, considering all available 

information, that risks were acceptable. 

For PM, we reviewed the control 

technologies in use by the industry and 

did not find any improvements or 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies since the 1999 

MACT standard was promulgated. 

Therefore, we did not propose 

amendments to the PM standards under 

either CAA sections 112(f)(2) or (d)(6). 

We also proposed to discontinue use 

of surrogates where we determined that 

the surrogacy was not reasonable. We 

proposed to discontinue using CO as a 

surrogate for COS, and to discontinue 

use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for 

phenol and methanol. Based on new 

source test data and CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and (3), we proposed MACT 

floor emission limits for existing and 

new sources of COS, phenol, and 

methanol, pollutants that were 

previously regulated under a surrogate; 

and MACT floor emission limits for 

formaldehyde, the former surrogate. We 

retained PM as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals because there is a 

reasonable surrogate relationship. We 

also proposed emissions limits for HF 

and HCl, two pollutants that were 

previously unregulated, and proposed 

alternative emission limits for periods of 

startup and shutdown. 

On April 15, 2013, we published a 

supplemental proposal for the Mineral 

Wool Production NESHAP that took 

into consideration the comments 

received on the November 2011 

proposal, new emissions testing for 

horizontal lines, and subcategorization 

of cupolas based on design and raw 

material use. We withdrew our 

previously-proposed alternative 

emission limits for startup and 

shutdown, and instead proposed that 

sources may demonstrate compliance 

with the MACT floor emission limits 

during periods of startup and shutdown 

by keeping records showing that the 

emissions from cupolas were routed to 

air pollution control devices operated at 

the parameters established by the most 

recent performance test that showed 

compliance with the standard. 

On November 13, 2014, the EPA 

published a second supplemental 

proposal for the Mineral Wool 

Production NESHAP that took into 

consideration comments received on the 

2013 supplemental proposal, explained 

changes to previously proposed MACT 

limits for sources in this source category 

and clarified our use of the UPL in 

setting the MACT floors. In that 

proposal, we also proposed work 

practice standards under CAA section 

112(h) for periods of startup and 

shutdown based on the practices used 

by the best performers among mineral 

wool producers to minimize emissions 

during these activities. 

D. What is the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category and how 

does the NESHAP regulate HAP 

emissions from the source category? 

The EPA promulgated the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP on 

June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695). The 

standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart NNN. The Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category is 

defined as any facility engaged in 

producing wool fiberglass from sand, 

feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous 

borax, boric acid or any other materials. 

The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

industry consists of facilities that 

produce bonded building insulation 

using a rotary spin (RS) manufacturing 

line, and facilities that produce bonded 

pipe insulation and bonded heavydensity products using a flame 

attenuation (FA) manufacturing line. 

The 1999 MACT standards currently 

apply to 10 major sources in the wool 

fiberglass industry. Another 20 facilities 

are area sources. 

Wool fiberglass is used primarily as a 

thermal and acoustical insulation for 

buildings, automobiles, aircraft, 

appliances, ductwork and pipes. This 

category includes, but is not limited to, 

the following process units: A furnace 

for melting the mineral charge; a bonded 

line operation in which air and a binder 

are drawn over the fibers and cured in 

an oven to bond the fibers; and a cooling 

compartment. The 1999 NESHAP rule 

set emissions limits for PM from new 

and existing glass-melting furnaces and 

formaldehyde emissions from new FA 

and new and existing RS bonded lines. 

E. What changes did we propose for 

major sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category in our 

November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 

2013 supplemental proposal; and 

November 13, 2014 supplemental 

proposal? 

On November 25, 2011, the EPA 

published a proposed rule for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP to 

amend the standard based on our RTR 

analyses. In that proposal, we found 

under CAA section 112(f)(2) that the 

MIR for cancer, primarily due to 

emissions of hexavalent chromium and 

formaldehyde, was 40-in-1 million 

based on actual emissions and 60-in-1 

million based on MACT-allowable 

emissions. The maximum chronic noncancer target organ specific hazard 

index (TOSHI) value based on actual 

emissions was 0.2 with emissions of 

formaldehyde dominating those 

impacts. The acute noncancer hazard 

quotient (HQ), based on the 

recommended exposure limit (REL) for 

formaldehyde, was 30. The acute 

noncancer HQ, based on the Acute 

Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL–1) for 

formaldehyde, was 2. We determined 

that nothing prevents construction of a 

high chromium emitting furnace at any 

wool fiberglass facility. Therefore, we 

evaluated risk under an auxiliary risk 

assessment which asked, ‘‘if all wool 

fiberglass facilities emitted hexavalent 

chromium at the level of the highest 

emitter (that is, 450 pounds of 

hexavalent chromium annually), what 

would be the risk to human health?’’ 

The MIR under the auxiliary risk 

analysis exceeded 100-in-one million at 

four facilities, a level we consider 

unacceptable. 

Although the risk from actual 

emissions were considered to be well 

within a level we consider acceptable, 

we proposed that risk due to hexavalent 

chromium could be further reduced to 

achieve an ample margin of safety. The 

chromium compounds limit would also 

prevent operation of another highchromium emitting furnace in this 

source category. We therefore proposed 

chromium compounds emission limits 

of 0.00006 pounds of chromium 

compounds per ton of glass pulled, 

under CAA section 112(f)(2). 

We proposed under CAA section 

112(d)(6) that the control technologies 

in place on wool fiberglass 

manufacturing furnaces were essentially 

the same as existed at the time the 

MACT standards were promulgated, but 

that there have been improvements in 

both the operation and the design of 

furnaces and their control technologies 

since that time. As a result, we proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45285 

emissions limits for both PM and total 

chromium compounds for gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces at major sources, 

under CAA section 112(d)(6), and 

indicated our intent to list and regulate 

chromium compounds at area sources in 

a future action. 

In the November 2011 proposal, 

similar to how we addressed the 

mineral wool source category, we also 

proposed in wool fiberglass to 

discontinue use of formaldehyde as a 

surrogate for phenol and methanol 

because the surrogacy was not 

reasonable. We proposed phenol, 

formaldehyde, and methanol MACT 

floor emission limits based on 

information collected in 2010 for two 

subcategories of bonded lines under 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We 

proposed limits for FA lines that apply 

to all lines without further 

subcategorization, and proposed 

alternative emission limits for periods of 

startup and shutdown. In that notice, we 

also announced that we had issued an 

ICR under our section 114 authority to 

gather additional emission information 

on furnace chromium emissions. 

In our April 2013 supplemental 

proposal, we took into consideration 

comments received on the November 

2011 proposal, new process and 

chromium emissions test data, and 

related furnace data collected under a 

CAA section 114 ICR. 

We further proposed revised PM 

emission limits for glass-melting 

furnaces at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities that are major 

sources under CAA section 112(d)(6), 

presented the results of the new 

chromium emission testing collected 

from glass-melting furnaces, and 

required that the chromium emission 

limits proposed under CAA sections 

112(d)(6) and (f)(2) would apply only to 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at major 

sources. We proposed an alternative 

compliance provision for startup and 

shutdown that would require sources to 

keep records showing that emissions 

were routed to the air pollution control 

devices and that these control devices 

were operated at the parameters 

established during the most recent 

performance test that showed 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits. For electric cold-top 

furnaces, we proposed limiting raw 

material content to only cullet during 

startup and shutdown in recognition of 

the fact that these furnaces do not allow 

control devices to be operated during 

startup. For all other glass-melting 

furnaces, we also required preheating 

the empty furnace using only natural 

gas. 

On November 13, 2014, the EPA 

published a second supplemental 

proposal. For major sources, the 2014 

supplemental proposal took into 

consideration comments received on the 

2013 supplemental proposal, withdrew 

the previously proposed amendments 

for affirmative defense, explained 

changes to previously proposed limits 

for major sources in this source 

category, proposed work practice 

standards under CAA section 112(h) for 

periods of startup and shutdown, and 

clarified our use of the UPL in setting 

MACT floors. 

F. What did we propose for area sources 

in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category in our November 25, 

2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 

supplemental proposal; and November 

13, 2014 supplemental proposal? 

In the November 2011 proposal, we 

noted our intent to potentially list wool 

fiberglass manufacturing area sources 

and to use data from the CAA section 

114 letter noted above to regulate wool 

fiberglass area sources in a future action. 

On April 15, 2013, the EPA published 

a supplemental proposal that listed gasfired glass-melting furnaces at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities that 

are area sources as a source category 

under CAA sections 112(c)(3)and (k)(3). 

We also proposed first-time PM and 

total chromium compounds standards 

for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

that are area sources under CAA section 

112(d)(5). 

We proposed GACT standards of 

0.00006 pounds of chromium 

compounds per ton of glass pulled and 

0.33 pounds of PM per ton of glass 

pulled. These were the same limits that 

we proposed for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces located at major sources in the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category. To maintain consistency with 

the major source rule, we proposed the 

same provisions for startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, testing, monitoring, and 

recordkeeping that we proposed for 

major sources. 

On November 13, 2014, the EPA 

published a second supplemental 

proposal. For area sources, the 2014 

supplemental proposal took into 

consideration comments received on the 

2013 supplemental proposal, withdrew 

the previously proposed provisions for 

affirmative defense, explained changes 

to previously proposed limits for 

sources in this source category, and 

proposed work practice standards under 

CAA section 112(h) for periods of 

startup and shutdown. 

III. What is included in the final 

Mineral Wool Production rule? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 for the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category and amends the Mineral Wool 

Production NESHAP based on those 

determinations. This action also 

finalizes MACT emission limits under 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown under CAA section 

112(h), and other changes to the 

NESHAP discussed in section III.E of 

this preamble. 

In this action, we are finalizing, as 

previously proposed, the emission 

limits for HAP-emitting processes in the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category, as shown in Table 2 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 2—EMISSION LIMITS FOR THE MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY

Process Subcategory HAP 2011 Proposal 2013 Proposal 2014 Proposal Final rule 

Cupolas .............. Existing Open-top ........................... COS ................... 3.3 .................. 6.8 .................. No change ..... 6.8 

New Open-top ................................. COS ................... 0.017 .............. 4.3 .................. 3.2 .................. 3.2 

Existing Closed-top ......................... COS ................... 3.3 .................. 3.4 .................. No change ..... 3.4 

New Closed-top .............................. COS ................... 0.017 .............. 0.025 .............. 0.062 .............. 0.062 

Existing Processing Slag ................ HF ...................... 0.014 .............. 0.16 ................ No change ..... 0.16 

HCl ..................... 0.0096 ............ 0.21 ................ 0.44 ................ 0.44 

New Processing Slag ..................... HF ...................... 0.014 .............. 0.16 ................ 0.015 .............. 0.015

HCl ..................... 0.0096 ............ 0.21 ................ 0.012 .............. 0.012 

Existing Not Processing Slag ......... HF ...................... 0.014 .............. 0.13 ................ No change ..... 0.13 

HCl ..................... 0.0096 ............ 0.43 ................ No change ..... 0.43 

New Not Processing Slag ............... HF ...................... 0.014 .............. 0.13 ................ 0.018 .............. 0.018 

HCl ..................... 0.0096 ............ 0.43 ................ 0.015 .............. 0.015 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45286 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

5For the purpose of this exercise, we considered 

developments not identified or considered during 

development of the 1999 MACT rules, including 

any add-on control technology or equipment; any 

improvements in technology or equipment that 

could result in significant additional emissions 

reduction; any work practice or operational 

procedure; any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be broadly applied 

to the industry; and any development in equipment 

or technology that could result in decreased HAP 

emissions. 

TABLE 2—EMISSION LIMITS FOR THE MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY—Continued 

Process Subcategory HAP 2011 Proposal 2013 Proposal 2014 Proposal Final rule 

Bonded Lines ..... Vertical (Existing and New) Combined Collection and Curing Operations.Formaldehyde ....

Phenol ................

Methanol ............

0.46 ................

0.52 ................

0.63 ................

2.7 ..................

0.74 ................

1.0 ..................

2.4 ..................

0.71 ................

0.92 ................

2.4 

0.71 

0.92 

Horizontal (Existing and New) 

Combined Collection and Curing 

Operations.

Formaldehyde ....

Phenol ................

Methanol ............

0.054 ..............

0.15 ................

0.022 ..............

No change .....

No change .....

No change .....

0.63 ................

0.12 ................

0.49 ................

0.63 

0.12 

0.49 

Drum (Existing and New) Combined Collection and Curing Operations.Formaldehyde ....

Phenol ................

Methanol ............

0.067 ..............

0.0023 ............

0.00077 ..........

0.18 ................

1.3 ..................

0.48 ................

0.17 ................

0.85 ................

0.28 ................

0.17 

0.85 

0.28 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the Mineral 

Wool Production source category? 

As presented in the November 2014 

supplemental proposal, we are 

finalizing our determination that risks 

from the Mineral Wool Production 

source category are acceptable, the 

current standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health 

and prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. We are, therefore, not requiring 

additional controls and are thus 

readopting the existing standards under 

section 112(f)(2). 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category? 

As discussed in the November 2011 

proposal (76 FR 72786–72787, 72798), 

we identified and evaluated the 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that have 

occurred since the 1999 MACT rules 

were promulgated. In cases where we 

identified such developments, we 

analyzed the technical feasibility and 

the estimated impacts (e.g., costs, 

emissions reductions, risk reductions) of 

applying these developments. We then 

decided, based on impacts and 

feasibility, whether it was necessary to 

propose amendments to the regulation 

to require any of the identified 

developments. 

Based on our analyses of the data, 

information collected under the 

voluntary ICR, our general 

understanding of both of the industries 

and other available information on 

potential controls for these industries, 

we identified potential developments 5

in practices, processes, and control 

technologies. 

In addition to reviewing the practices, 

processes, and technologies that were 

not considered at the time we developed 

the 1999 MACT rules, we reviewed a 

variety of data sources for the mineral 

wool industry. This review included the 

NESHAP for various industries 

promulgated after the 1999 MACT rules, 

regulatory requirements and technical 

analyses associated with these 

regulatory actions to identify any 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies considered in these efforts 

that could possibly be applied to 

emissions sources in the Mineral Wool 

Production source category, as well as 

the costs, non-air impacts, and energy 

implications associated with the use of 

these technologies. 

We additionally consulted the EPA’s 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology/Best Available Control 

Technology/Lowest Achievable 

Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) 

Clearinghouse to identify potential 

technology advances, and searched this 

database to determine whether it 

contained any practices, processes, or 

control technologies for the types of 

processes covered by the mineral wool 

production rule. 

We also requested information from 

facilities regarding developments in 

practices, processes or control 

technologies and we reviewed other 

information sources, such as state and 

local permitting agency databases and 

industry-supported databases. For more 

information, see the ‘‘Technology 

Review for the Mineral Wool Production 

Source Category Memorandum’’ in the 

docket to this rule. 

As a result of our technology review 

under CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category, we determined that there are 

no developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies that 

warrant revisions to this MACT 

standard. We are therefore not 

amending the standards under CAA 

section 112(d)(6). 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3) for the Mineral Wool Production 

source category? 

This action finalizes the removal of 

formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol 

and methanol, and the removal of CO as 

a surrogate for COS, as earlier explained 

in this preamble and as proposed on 

November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72770). We 

also are finalizing the proposed COS, 

HCl, and HF emission limits for cupolas 

and the proposed emission limits for 

formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for 

bonded lines developed as a result of 

new representative detection limit 

(RDL) values, new source test data and 

our approach for calculating MACT 

floors based on limited data sets, as 

discussed in section III.B of the 

November 2014 supplemental proposal 

preamble. These final rule requirements 

for the Mineral Wool Production 

NESHAP are consistent with the 

provisions discussed in our various 

proposals. 

D. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup and shutdown for the Mineral 

Wool Production source category? 

We are finalizing, as proposed, 

amendments to the Mineral Wool 

Production NESHAP to eliminate the 

SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 

2008), the EPA has established work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown under CAA section 

112(h) because measurement of the 

emissions is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations. 

Emissions are not at steady state during 

startup and shutdown (a necessary 

factor for accurate emissions testing), 

and the varying stack conditions, gas 

compositions and low emission rates 

make accurate emission measurements 

impracticable. In addition, the startup 

period for mineral wool cupolas is 

usually 2 hours, which is too short a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45287 

time in which to conduct source testing. 

We are finalizing under CAA section 

112(h), as previously proposed in the 

November 2014 supplemental proposal, 

standards requiring affected sources to 

comply with work practices that are 

used by the best performers during 

periods of startup and shutdown. The 

best performers in the mineral wool 

industry use one of two possible work 

practices: either they route any cupola 

emissions that occur during startup and 

shutdown to an operating baghouse, or, 

alternatively, operate the cupola during 

startup and shutdown with three 

percent excess oxygen. Regarding the 

first alternative, baghouses achieve the 

same outlet concentrations regardless of 

pollutant loading in the emission 

stream, and fluctuations in pollutants or 

exhaust flow rate do not affect the 

overall level of emissions at the outlet 

of this control device. Regarding the 

second alternative, operating the cupola 

with excess oxygen prevents the 

formation of pollutants that would 

otherwise be routed to existing controls. 

In the final rule, we are specifying 

work practice standards that require 

items of equipment that are required or 

utilized for compliance with subpart 

DDD to be operating during startup and 

shutdown, designating when startups 

and shutdowns begin, and specifying 

recordkeeping requirements for startup 

and shutdown periods. We are also 

revising Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 

63 (General Provisions applicability 

table) to change several references 

related to requirements that apply 

during periods of SSM. We are 

eliminating or revising certain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the eliminated 

SSM exemption. 

E. What other changes have been made 

to the Mineral Wool Production 

NESHAP? 

We are finalizing, as proposed, 

addition of EPA Methods 26A and 320 

in appendix A part 63 for measuring the 

concentrations of HCl and HF. We are 

finalizing, as proposed, the requirement 

for existing sources to conduct 

performance tests to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits for 

cupolas and combined collection/curing 

operations no later than July 30, 2018 

and every 5 years thereafter. We are 

finalizing, as proposed, the requirement 

for new sources to comply with the 

emission limits of the final rule on July 

29, 2015, or upon the first cupola 

campaign, whichever is later, and to 

conduct performance tests to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits for cupolas and 

combined collection/curing operations 

within 180 days of the applicable 

compliance date. 

We are also adding an alternative 

operating limit for cupolas that provides 

owners or operators the option of 

maintaining the percent excess oxygen 

in the cupola at or above the level 

established during the performance test. 

In addition, we are finalizing editorial 

changes to the performance testing and 

compliance procedures to specify 

formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and 

COS rather than only the surrogates 

formaldehyde and CO. In this action, we 

are finalizing, as proposed, definitions 

for ‘‘closed-top cupola,’’ ‘‘open-top 

cupola,’’ ‘‘combined collection/curing 

operations’’ and ‘‘incinerator.’’ We are 

also adding a definition for ‘‘slag.’’ The 

2013 supplemental proposal indicated 

that we would add such a definition (78 

FR 22386). Slag is the primary 

contributing factor to the formation of 

HF and HCl in the cupola emissions, 

and is, for some mineral wool formulas, 

a necessary ingredient for the 

production of mineral wool. We 

subcategorized cupolas according to 

their use of slag as a raw material in the 

cupola, and are in this final rule 

defining slag in 40 CFR 63.1196 to mean 

the by-product materials separated from 

metals during smelting and refining of 

raw ore. 

We are also making minor corrections 

to the citations in Table 1 (part 63 

General Provision applicability table) to 

reflect both the final amendments in 

this action, and the revisions that have 

been made to the General Provisions 

since 1999. 

F. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the new MACT 

standards for the Mineral Wool 

Production source category? 

The new MACT standards for the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category being promulgated in this 

action are effective on July 29, 2015. 

The compliance date for existing 

cupolas and combined collection/curing 

operations is July 30, 2018. New sources 

must comply with the all of the 

standards immediately upon the 

effective date of the standard, July 29, 

2015, or upon initial startup, whichever 

is later. 

Mineral wool producers are 

predominantly small businesses. Prior 

to the November 25, 2011, proposal, we 

found there was potentially a significant 

impact to a substantial number of small 

entities (SISNOSE), and convened a 

small business advocacy review (SBAR) 

panel. In that process, the EPA 

conducted meetings with mineral wool 

companies and the Small Business 

Office of Advocacy in order to 

determine ways in which the impact 

and burden to small entities could be 

reduced while continuing to meet the 

requirements of the CAA. Stakeholders 

requested up to 3 years to comply with 

the standards once they were 

promulgated, in order to be able to 

install controls, find sources of lowsulfur coke and low-chloride slag, and 

to conduct performance testing. In 

subsequent proposals, we 

subcategorized cupolas according to 

design and according to raw material 

use, and can certify that the final rule 

will not have a SISNOSE. However, we 

believe that it is still appropriate to 

retain the proposed compliance date of 

3 years after promulgation because the 

added compliance emissions testing and 

any process changes sources needed to 

comply could become significant if the 

compliance time were shortened to less 

than the 3 years allowed for standards 

developed under CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and (3). 

G. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

As stated in the proposed preamble to 

the November 2011 proposal, the EPA is 

taking a step to increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and data 

accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is 

requiring owners and operators of 

affected facilities to submit electronic 

copies of certain required performance 

test reports. 

As mentioned in the preamble of the 

November 2011 proposal, data will be 

collected by direct computer-tocomputer electronic transfer using EPAprovided software. As discussed in the 

November 2011 proposal, the EPAprovided software is an electronic 

performance test report tool called the 

ERT. The ERT will generate an 

electronic report package which will be 

submitted to the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX). A 

description and instructions for use of 

the ERT can be found at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html, 

and CEDRI can be accessed through the 

CDX Web site at http://www.epa.gov/

cdx. 

The requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA does not create any additional 

performance testing and will apply only 

to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and 

test methods supported by the ERT is 

available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 

believes, through this approach, 

industry will save time in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45288 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

performance test submittal process. 

Additionally, this rulemaking benefits 

industry by cutting back on 

recordkeeping costs as the performance 

test reports that are submitted to the 

EPA using CEDRI are no longer required 

to be kept in hard copy. 

As mentioned in the preamble of the 

November 2011 proposal, state, local, 

and tribal agencies will benefit from 

more streamlined and accurate review 

of performance test data that will be 

available on the EPA WebFIRE database. 

The public will also benefit. Having 

these data publicly available enhances 

transparency and accountability. For a 

more thorough discussion of electronic 

reporting of performance tests using 

direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer and using EPA-provided 

software, see the discussion in the 

preamble of the November 2011 

proposal. 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development, and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data will save industry; state, local, 

and tribal agencies; and the EPA 

significant time, money, and effort, 

while improving the quality of emission 

inventories, air quality regulations and 

enhancing the public’s access to this 

important information. 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category? 

For each topic, this section provides 

a description of what we proposed and 

what we are finalizing for the subject, 

the EPA’s rationale for the final 

decisions and amendments and a 

summary of key comments and 

responses. For all comments not 

discussed in this preamble, comment 

summaries and the EPA’s responses can 

be found in the comment summary and 

response document available in the 

dockets for each source category. 

A. Residual Risk Review for the Mineral 

Wool Production Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f) for the Mineral Wool 

Production source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we 

conducted a residual risk assessment on 

the Mineral Wool Production source 

category and presented the results of 

this assessment, along with our 

proposed decisions regarding risk 

acceptability and ample margin of 

safety, in the November 2011 proposed 

rule (76 FR 72798). Based on the 

inhalation risk assessment, we 

estimated that the MIR could be up to 

4-in-1 million due to actual emissions 

and up to 10-in-1 million due to MACTallowable emissions, mainly due to 

formaldehyde stack emissions. We 

estimated that the incidence of cancer 

based on actual emissions is 0.0004 

excess cancer cases per year or one case 

every 2,500 years, and that about 1,700 

people face a cancer risk greater than 1- 

in-1 million due to HAP emissions from 

the mineral wool production source 

category. 

That risk assessment indicated that 

the maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI value for the Mineral 

Wool Production source category could 

be up to 0.04 with emissions of 

formaldehyde dominating those 

impacts, indicating no significant 

potential for chronic non-cancer 

impacts. 

Our screening analysis for worst-case 

acute impacts indicated the potential for 

only one pollutant, formaldehyde, to 

exceed an HQ value of 1 at only one 

facility in the Mineral Wool Production 

source category, with a potential 

maximum HQ up to 8. A refined 

emissions multiplier of 3 was used to 

estimate the peak hourly emission rates 

from the average rates. 

Consequently, in November 2011 we 

proposed that risks from this source 

category were acceptable. In addition, 

we did not identify cost-effective 

options that would further reduce risk 

under our ample margin of safety 

analysis. Therefore, we proposed that 

the current standards for the Mineral 

Wool Production source category 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. We also 

determined that HAP emissions from 

this source category were not expected 

to result in adverse environmental 

effects. 

In the April 2013 supplemental 

proposal, we revised the risk assessment 

to reflect new emissions data submitted 

by the industry following the 2011 

proposal, the development of 

subcategories for HCl and HF emissions 

from slag- and nonslag-processing 

cupolas, and subcategories for COS 

emissions from closed- and open-top 

cupolas. As noted in the 2013 

supplemental proposal, the risks 

estimated in our revised assessment 

under CAA section 112(f)(2) from actual 

emissions increased slightly (based on 

the new data) compared to the risk 

assessment conducted for the 2011 

proposal. The actual MIR for cancer 

increased from 4-in-1 million to 10-in1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value for the source 

category increased from 0.04 to 0.12 

with emissions of formaldehyde 

dominating those impacts, indicating no 

significant potential for chronic 

noncancer impacts. The acute 

noncancer HQ, based on the REL for 

formaldehyde, increased from 8 to 20. 

The acute noncancer HQ, based on the 

AEGL–1 for formaldehyde, increased 

from 0.4 to 1.1. While the risk increased 

slightly based on the new source test 

data, we noted that that our findings 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety remained unchanged. 

In our November 2014 supplemental 

proposal, we also revised the draft risk 

assessment under CAA section 112(f)(2) 

based on new emissions data collected 

by the industry and updates to the 

model and model libraries. The new test 

data that were received did not change 

our estimate of risk from actual 

emissions when compared to the risk 

assessment conducted for the 2013 

supplemental proposal. The risk from 

mineral wool production continued to 

be driven by formaldehyde and to be 

well within a level we consider to be 

acceptable. The MIR for cancer for 

actual baseline emissions remained 10- 

in-1 million, with the acute noncancer 

HQ remaining at 20 for the REL and at 

1 for the AEGL–1. The maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based 

on actual emissions remained at 0.1 

with emissions of formaldehyde 

dominating those impacts, indicating no 

significant potential for chronic 

noncancer impacts. 

The MIR for cancer from mineral wool 

production due to allowable emissions 

(under the original MACT standard) was 

estimated to be 30-in-1 million 

(formaldehyde). Facilities actually emit 

formaldehyde at levels lower than 

allowed under the 1999 MACT 

standard, and the limits in the final rule 

codify formaldehyde (and the other 

HAP) limits at the actual emissions 

levels. As a result, the potential MIR for 

cancer due to allowable emissions after 

implementation of the standard is 

estimated to be 10-in-1 million. 

Therefore, the MIR based on emissions 

at the level of this standard (i.e., what 

sources are permitted to emit) decreased 

by a factor of 3 from MACT-allowable 

levels. Additional information on the 

risk assessment can be found in the 

document titled, ‘‘Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing in Support of the June 

2015 Final Rule’’ available in the docket 

for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

1041). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45289 

2. How did the risk review change for 

the Mineral Wool Production source 

category? 

We have not changed any aspect of 

the risk assessment since the November 

2014 supplemental proposal. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the risk review for the Mineral Wool 

Production source category, and what 

are our responses? 

The comments received on the 

proposed risk review were generally 

supportive of our determination of risk 

acceptability and ample margin of safety 

analysis and requirement for additional 

control. A summary of the comments 

received regarding the risk acceptability 

and ample margin of safety analysis and 

our responses can be found in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041). 

None of the public comments resulted 

in changes to the conclusions of our risk 

analysis. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach and final decisions for the risk 

review for the Mineral Wool Production 

source category? 

As explained in the various proposals 

and in section IV.A.1 of this preamble, 

our assessment of residual risk from the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category shows that risks from the 

source category are acceptable, the 

current standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health, 

and prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. We are, therefore, not requiring 

additional controls and are thus 

readopting the existing standards under 

section 112(f)(2). 

B. Technology Review for the Mineral 

Wool Production Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Mineral 

Wool Production source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we 

conducted a technology review that 

focused on identifying and evaluating 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies for sources of 

HAP in the Mineral Wool Production 

source category. As discussed in the 

2011 proposal (76 FR 72798), existing 

cupolas are controlled using baghouses, 

and bonded lines are controlled using 

thermal oxidizers. We did not identify 

any relevant cost-effective 

developments in technologies, practices, 

or processes since promulgation of the 

1999 NESHAP that would further 

reduce HAP emissions. Therefore, we 

did not propose any changes to the 1999 

NESHAP as a result of our technology 

review under CAA section 112(d)(6) for 

the Mineral Wool Production source 

category. Additional information 

regarding the technology review for the 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category can be found in the document 

titled, ‘‘Section 112(d)(6) Technology 

Review for the Final Mineral Wool 

NESHAP’’ available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041). 

2. How did the technology review 

change for the Mineral Wool Production 

source category? 

We have not changed any aspect of 

the technology review for this source 

category since the November 2014 

supplemental proposal. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the technology review, and what are 

our responses? 

The comments received on our 

technology review and findings were 

generally supportive. A summary of the 

comments received regarding the 

technology review and our responses 

can be found in the comment summary 

and response document available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1041). We note that none of the 

public comments and information 

received in response to the November 

2014 supplemental proposal provided 

data relevant to the technology review, 

and we made no changes to the 

technology review based on the 

comments. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the technology review? 

As explained in the various proposals 

and in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, 

we did not identify any cost-effective 

developments in practices, processes 

and controls used to reduce emissions 

from the mineral wool production 

industry. Therefore, consistent with our 

proposals, we are not making any 

changes to the standards as a result of 

the CAA section 112(d)(6) review. 

C. MACT Standards for Pollutants 

Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate 

and Previously Unregulated Pollutants 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for 

pollutants previously regulated under a 

surrogate and for previously 

unregulated pollutants? 

In our November 2011 proposal, we 

proposed revisions to the 1999 NESHAP 

under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). 

We proposed to remove unreasonable 

surrogates, to set limits for each HAP 

emitted that was previously regulated 

under a surrogate, and to set limits for 

previously unregulated HAP. These 

revisions included removing CO as a 

surrogate for COS and removing 

formaldehyde as a surrogate for 

methanol and phenol; proposing 

emission limits for COS from cupolas, 

formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol 

from combined collection and curing 

operations; and proposing emissions 

limits for previously unregulated 

pollutants (i.e., HCl and HF emitted 

from cupolas). 

In our April 2013 supplemental 

proposal, we made changes to the 

previously proposed emission limits for 

phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol 

based on new emissions test data. We 

further proposed subcategories for COS 

emissions from cupolas based on cupola 

design. Finally, we proposed 

subcategories for HF and HCl from 

cupolas based on whether they 

processed slag. 

In the November 2014 supplemental 

proposal, we revised emission limits 

under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) 

for cupolas and bonded lines as a result 

of new information regarding detection 

limits (and consistent with our 

procedures for ensuring that emission 

limits are not set below the minimum 

level that can be accurately measured), 

new source test data and our approach 

for calculating MACT floors based on 

limited data sets. 

2. How did we change our proposed 

emission limits for pollutants that were 

previously regulated under a surrogate 

or that were previously unregulated? 

Our final emission limits for 

pollutants previously regulated under a 

surrogate, and previously unregulated 

pollutants did not change since our 

most recent proposal in November 2014. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on pollutants previously regulated 

under a surrogate and on previously 

unregulated pollutants? 

We received comments both 

supporting and objecting to our use of 

the UPL in calculating MACT floors and 

the way we treat limited datasets for 

these pollutants. The commenters did 

not provide new information or a basis 

for the EPA to change the proposed 

emission limits, and did not show that 

facilities cannot comply with the MACT 

standards. The comments related to the 

proposed emission limits for pollutants 

that were previously regulated under a 

surrogate and that were previously 

unregulated are in the comment 

summary and the response document 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45290 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for pollutants previously 

regulated under a surrogate and for 

previously unregulated pollutants? 

As we discussed in the preamble for 

the November 2014 supplemental 

proposal and provided in the comment 

summary and response document 

available in the docket, we are 

finalizing, as proposed, the emission 

limits for pollutants previously 

regulated under a surrogate and for 

previously unregulated pollutants. 

Three surrogate relationships were in 

place in the Mineral Wool MACT 

standard, and we reviewed each of these 

to determine whether they were 

reasonable surrogates. We found that the 

relationship of formaldehyde, methanol 

and phenol emissions tend to be 

specific to the binder formulation of an 

individual product. We found that the 

surrogacy of CO for COS was not 

reasonable because the two pollutants 

are not invariably present and the 

relationships tend to be specific to the 

site. We retained the surrogacy of PM 

for non-mercury HAP metals because 

control of PM achieves the same level of 

control for non-mercury HAP metals, 

regardless of the concentration of those 

metals in the PM or whether the 

concentration of those metals varies in 

the PM. 

We requested and obtained HAPspecific emissions testing for all HAP 

emitted by all processes in the mineral 

wool industry. Emissions of PM, HF, 

HCl, and COS were measured from at 

least one cupola in operation at each 

facility, and emissions of formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol were measured at 

the three bonded lines that were in 

operation in 2010. As a result of the 

information we gathered, we are 

finalizing limits for all measured HAP 

and for the collection process, which 

emits HAP but was not regulated under 

the 1999 MACT standard. We are not 

changing the PM emission limit as a 

result of the information we gathered. 

HF and HCl were not previously 

regulated, and the emissions of these 

pollutants depend upon whether slag is 

used in the cupola. Slag is a raw 

material in the mineral wool industry 

that is a waste product of electric arc 

furnaces at steel plants. Depending on 

the end-use of the mineral wool 

product, slag is a needed ingredient in 

some mineral wool formulations and an 

undesirable ingredient in others. The 

use of slag as a raw material in the 

mineral wool cupola causes ‘‘shot’’ 

(small pellets of iron) to form in the 

mineral wool product. The quality of 

some mineral wool products (such as 

that used for hydroponic gardening) is 

affected by the presence of shot, and, as 

a result, facilities making such products 

do not use slag in their raw materials. 

Consequently, their emissions of HF and 

HCl are lower. Two subcategories of 

cupolas reflect whether slag is 

processed in the cupola. 

Emissions of COS are affected by 

whether a cupola is designed as a closed 

cupola (which results in lower COS 

emissions) or an open cupola (which 

results in higher COS emissions). Two 

subcategories of cupolas reflect this 

design criteria. 

Data collected from the mineral wool 

industry showed three bonded lines 

were in operation at the time of data 

collection in 2010. The bonded lines 

include both collection (the process in 

which the fibers are formed and sprayed 

with a phenol/formaldehyde binding 

agent); and curing, the thermosetting 

process that cures the binder. Collection 

was not regulated under the 1999 MACT 

standard, the emissions from both the 

curing and collection processes are 

vented to the same line, and the 

emissions from these processes can be 

measured together. These combined 

collection and curing operations emit 

phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol as 

a result of the phenolic resin used to 

produce the bonded product. We are 

finalizing limits for combined collection 

and curing operations according to three 

different designs: Vertical, horizontal, 

and drum. The final emission limits for 

the mineral wool industry are shown 

above in Table 2 of section III of this 

preamble. 

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Provisions for the Mineral Wool 

Production Source Category 

1. What SSM provisions did we propose 

for the Mineral Wool Production source 

category? 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some CAA section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

We have therefore eliminated the 

SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent 

with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has 

established work practice standards for 

those periods. We also revised Table 1 

of the General Provisions applicability 

table in several respects as is explained 

in more detail below. For example, we 

have eliminated the incorporation of the 

General Provisions’ requirement that the 

source develop an SSM plan. We also 

eliminated and revised certain 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions 

that are related to the SSM exemption 

as described in detail in the proposed 

rule and summarized again in section 

IV.D of this preamble, in the rule at 40 

CFR 63.1389, and in the General 

Provisions Table 1 to subpart DDD of 

part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 

2. How did the SSM provisions change 

for the Mineral Wool Production source 

category? 

We have not changed any aspect of 

the proposed SSM provisions since the 

November 2014 supplemental proposal. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the SSM provisions, and what are 

our responses? 

We received comments regarding the 

proposed revisions to remove the SSM 

exemptions for the Mineral Wool 

Production source category. Comments 

from industry representatives expressed 

support for the proposed work practice 

standards. Another commenter 

contended that we should have 

established numerical emission limits. 

As we noted in the November 2014 

supplemental proposal (79 FR 68016), 

the EPA may promulgate a work 

practice rather than an emissions 

standard when measurement of the 

emissions is technically and 

economically practicable. In the case of 

this source category, emissions are not 

at steady state during startup and 

shutdown (a necessary factor for 

accurate emissions testing), and the 

varying stack conditions, gas 

compositions, and flow rates make 

accurate emission measurements 

impracticable. In addition, startup 

period for mineral wool cupolas, 

typically 2 hours, is too short a time to 

conduct source testing. 

The commenters did not provide new 

information or a basis for the EPA to 

change the proposed provisions and did 

not show that facilities cannot comply 

with the work practice standards during 

periods of startup and shutdown. The 

comments related to the proposed 

revisions to remove the SSM 

exemptions and our specific responses 

to those comments can be found in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45291 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions for the SSM provisions? 

For the reasons provided above, in the 

preamble for the proposed rule and 

provided in the comment summary and 

response document available in the 

docket, we have removed the SSM 

exemption from the Mineral Wool 

Production NESHAP; eliminated or 

revised certain recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements related to the 

eliminated SSM exemption; and 

removed or modified inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant language in 

the absence of the SSM exemption. For 

periods of startup and shutdown, we are 

finalizing the work practices of the best 

performers, as proposed in the 

November 2014 supplemental proposal. 

Owners/operators may choose to 

comply using two potential options 

during startup and shutdown. One, 

cupola emissions may be controlled 

using the control devices that meet the 

limits of the standard during normal 

operation, or two, the cupola may be 

operated during startup and shutdown 

with 3 percent or more excess oxygen. 

Additionally, sources must maintain 

records of the startup and shutdown 

option they practice, and must monitor 

and keep records of the parameters of 

the operating control device(s) or the 

oxygen level of the cupola during these 

periods. The controls of startup and 

shutdown emissions practiced by the 

best performers in the source category 

are sufficient so that no additional 

standards are needed to address 

emissions during startup or shutdown 

periods. 

E. Other Changes Made to the Mineral 

Wool Production NESHAP 

1. What other changes did we propose 

for the Mineral Wool Production 

NESHAP? 

a. Electronic Reporting 

As stated in the preamble to the 

November 2011 proposed rule, the EPA 

proposed electronic reporting 

requirements. See section III.G of this 

preamble for more information on what 

we proposed (and what we are 

finalizing) for electronic reporting. 

b. Test Methods and Testing Frequency 

We are finalizing, as proposed, the 

requirement for new sources to conduct 

performance tests to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits for 

cupolas and combined collection/curing 

operations within 180 days of the 

applicable compliance date and every 5 

years thereafter. We are finalizing, as 

proposed, the requirement for existing 

sources to conduct performance tests to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits for cupolas and 

combined collection/curing operations 

by July 30, 2018 and every 5 years 

thereafter. We are finalizing, as 

proposed, the addition of EPA Methods 

26A and 320 in appendix A of part 63 

for measuring the concentrations of HCl 

and HF; and EPA Method 318 for 

measuring the concentrations of COS, 

formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol. In 

addition, we are finalizing editorial 

changes to the performance testing and 

compliance procedures to replace 

references in the 1999 NESHAP to the 

surrogates CO and formaldehyde with 

references to specific HAP 

(formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol 

for the surrogate formaldehyde, and 

COS for the surrogate CO). 

2. How did the provisions regarding 

these other changes to the Mineral Wool 

Production NESHAP change since 

proposal? 

We have not made any changes to the 

proposed provisions for electronic 

reporting; testing methods and 

frequency; definitions or revisions to the 

General Provision applicability table. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the other changes to the Mineral 

Wool Production NESHAP, and what 

are our responses? 

We received no key comments 

regarding electronic reporting, testing 

methods and frequency, definitions, and 

revisions to the General Provisions 

applicability table. A summary of the 

comments we did receive and our 

responses can be found in the comment 

summary and response document 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041). 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions regarding these other changes 

to the Mineral Wool Production 

NESHAP? 

There was no information in the 

public comments that affected the 

rationale for these provisions that was 

presented in the various proposals. 

Therefore, we are finalizing the 

proposed provisions regarding 

electronic reporting; testing methods 

and frequency; definitions and revisions 

to the General Provision applicability 

table. 

V. What is included in the Final Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for 

major sources? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category and amends the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP 

based on those determinations. This 

action also finalizes other changes to the 

NESHAP (e.g., compliance dates) as 

discussed in section V.F of this 

preamble. In addition, we are finalizing 

the emission limits for major sources in 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category as shown in Table 3 of 

this preamble. 

TABLE 3—EMISSION LIMITS FOR WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING MAJOR SOURCES

[lb pollutant/ton glass pulled] 

Process HAP Emission limit 

Existing Flame Attenuation Lines ................................................................................. Formaldehyde ...........................................

Phenol .......................................................

Methanol ...................................................

5.6 

1.4 

0.50 

New Flame Attenuation Lines ...................................................................................... Formaldehyde ...........................................

Phenol .......................................................

Methanol ...................................................

2.6 

0.44 

0.35 

Existing and New Furnaces ......................................................................................... PM ............................................................. 0.33 

Existing and New Gas-Fired Furnaces ........................................................................ Chromium compounds .............................. 0.00025 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45292 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing (major 

sources) source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we 

are finalizing emission limits for 

chromium emissions from gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces of 0.00025 

pounds of total chromium per ton of 

glass pulled to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health. We are 

also requiring that facilities establish the 

materials mix, including the percentages 

of raw materials and cullet, used in gasfired glass-melting furnaces during the 

performance test conducted to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

chromium emission limit. We are 

requiring that the percentage of cullet in 

the material mix be continually 

maintained at or below the level 

established during the most recent 

performance test showing compliance 

with the standard. 

We note that although we have 

adopted these same standards, under 

both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 

112(d)(6), these standards rest on 

independent statutory authorities and 

independent rationales. Consequently, 

these standards remain independent 

and legally severable. 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major 

sources) source category? 

We determined that there are 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that warrant 

revisions to the MACT standards for this 

source category. Therefore, to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), 

we are revising the existing MACT 

standards to include an emission limit 

for glass-melting furnaces of 0.33 

pounds of PM per ton of glass pulled as 

we proposed in April 2013. In this 

action, we are also revising the 

proposed chromium emission limit for 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces from 

0.00006 to 0.00025 pounds of total 

chromium per ton of glass pulled, based 

on our re-assessment of emissions data 

for newly-rebuilt gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces. 

We note that although we have 

adopted the total chromium compounds 

standards under both CAA sections 

112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these standards 

rest on independent statutory 

authorities and independent rationales. 

Consequently, these standards remain 

independent and legally severable. 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3) for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing (major sources) source 

category? 

This action finalizes the HAP-specific 

limits proposed in November 2014 that 

we developed under CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and (3) as a result of removing 

the use of formaldehyde as a surrogate 

for methanol and phenol on FA lines. 

We are also eliminating the 

subcategories for FA lines because the 

technical bases for distinguishing the 

subcategories when the original rule 

was developed no longer exist and we 

are promulgating emission limits at the 

MACT floor level for formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol. 

As explained in section V.H of this 

preamble, we are not, at this time, 

finalizing limits under CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and (3) for RS lines. 

D. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major 

sources) source category? 

This action finalizes the work practice 

standards for HCl and HF emissions 

from glass-melting furnaces at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities 

developed under CAA section 112(h) as 

proposed in November 2014 (79 FR 

68023). These amendments to the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP are 

consistent with the amendments 

discussed in the November 2014 

supplemental proposal. 

E. What are the final rule amendments 

for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

(major sources) source category 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup and shutdown? 

We are finalizing, as proposed, 

changes to the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing NESHAP to eliminate 

the SSM exemption. Consistent with 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008), the EPA has established work 

practice standards in this rule that apply 

during startup and shutdown periods. 

We are revising Table 1 to subpart NNN 

of part 63 (General Provisions 

applicability table) to change several 

references related to requirements that 

apply during periods of SSM. We also 

eliminated or revised certain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the eliminated 

SSM exemption. We are specifying that 

items of equipment that are required or 

utilized for compliance with 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart NNN must be operated 

during startup and shutdown. We are 

finalizing the specifications designating 

when startup and shutdown begins and 

recordkeeping requirements for 

demonstrating compliance during 

startup and shutdown periods. 

We determined that facilities in this 

source category can meet the applicable 

work practice standards by following 

the startup and shutdown procedures 

that we identified as representative of 

the procedures employed by the best 

performing units during periods of 

startup and shutdown. 

Gas-fired furnaces use an electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) to control emissions 

during normal operations. The best 

performing gas-fired furnaces route 

emissions during startup and shutdown 

to the control device. We note that 

operators of gas-fired furnaces that 

formerly turned off the controls during 

startup or shutdown would no longer be 

allowed to do so. 

Electric furnaces use baghouses to 

control emissions during normal 

operations. Until the crust is formed on 

top of the molten glass (and startup 

ends) the temperature of the gases that 

would be routed to the baghouse would 

cause the bags to catch fire. The best 

performing electric furnaces use only 

cullet (which emits PM at extremely low 

levels when melted) and clean fuels 

(natural gas, which does not emit PM 

when combusted) during startup and 

shutdown in order to minimize PM 

emissions during these periods. 

F. What other changes have been made 

to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP (major sources)? 

We are finalizing, as proposed, the 

addition of EPA Method 29 for 

measuring the concentrations of 

chromium. We are finalizing the 

requirement, as proposed, to maintain 

the filter temperature at 248 ± 25 °F 

when using Method 5 to measure PM 

emissions from furnaces. We are also 

amending the NESHAP to allow owners 

or operators to measure PM emissions 

from furnaces using either EPA Method 

5 or Method 29. 

We are finalizing, as proposed, the 

addition of EPA Method 318 as an 

alternative test method for measuring 

the concentration of phenol and 

methanol and EPA Method 308 as an 

alternative test method for measuring 

the concentration of methanol. We are 

finalizing, as proposed in the 2013 

supplemental proposal (78 FR 22402), 

the replacement of a minimum sampling 

time of 1 hour with the specification to 

collect 10 spectra when using EPA 

Method 318. When using Method 316 to 

measure formaldehyde, we are 

finalizing, as proposed, the requirement 

to collect a minimum sampling volume 

of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm); 

however, we are not finalizing the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45293 

proposed minimum sampling run time 

of 2 hours. We are also finalizing 

editorial changes to the performance 

testing and compliance procedures to 

specify formaldehyde, methanol, phenol 

(rather than the surrogate, 

formaldehyde), chromium, HCl, and HF. 

Additionally, for existing sources we are 

finalizing, as proposed, the requirement 

to conduct performance tests to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

chromium emission limit for furnaces 

no later than July 31, 2017 and annually 

thereafter; to demonstrate compliance 

with the PM emission limit for furnaces 

no later than July 31, 2017 and every 5 

years thereafter; and to demonstrate 

compliance with the phenol, 

formaldehyde and methanol emission 

limits for FA lines no later than July 31, 

2017 and every 5 years thereafter. 

We are finalizing the requirement for 

new sources to comply with the 

emission limits on July 29, 2015, or 

upon the initial startup, whichever is 

later, and to conduct performance tests 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits for furnaces and FA 

lines no later than 180 days after the 

applicable compliance date. Following 

the initial test to demonstrate 

compliance with the chromium 

emission limit, owners or operators 

must test for chromium emissions 

annually. For all other pollutants, 

owners or operators must conduct 

performance tests every 5 years after the 

initial test to demonstrate compliance 

with the emissions limits. Table 4 of 

this preamble summarizes the 

compliance test schedule for major and 

area sources. 

TABLE 4—WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING COMPLIANCE TEST SCHEDULE FOR MAJOR SOURCES

Process Pollutant(s) 

Initial test dates Subsequent testing 

frequency Existing sources New sources 

FA Line ...................... Phenol Formaldehyde 

Methanol.

2 years after publication of the 

final rule amendments in the 

Federal Register.

Within 180 days after publication 

in the Federal Register, or 180 

days after initial startup, whichever is later.

Every 5 years thereafter. 

All Furnace Types ...... PM 

Gas-fired Furnace ...... Chromium compounds Annually thereafter. 

We are finalizing, as proposed, the 

clarification that 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart NNN applies to FA lines, 

regardless of what products are 

manufactured on the FA line. 

In this action, we are finalizing, as 

proposed, definitions for ‘‘gas-fired 

glass-melting furnace’’ and 

‘‘incinerator.’’ We are also revising the 

definition of ‘‘new source’’ and the 

trigger date for the requirement to 

submit notifications of intent to 

construct/reconstruct an affected source 

to reflect the date of the initial RTR 

proposal (November 25, 2011). 

We are finalizing, as proposed, the 

monitoring requirement for furnaces 

and FA lines to provide flexibility in 

establishing an appropriate monitoring 

parameter. 

We are also making minor corrections 

to the citations in Table 1 (part 63 

General Provision applicability table) to 

reflect the final amendments in this 

action, and the revisions that have been 

made to the General Provisions since 

1999. 

G. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards? 

The revisions to the MACT standards 

for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category being promulgated in 

this action are effective on July 29, 2015. 

The compliance date for existing 

sources is July 31, 2017. New sources 

must comply with the all of the 

standards immediately upon the 

effective date of the standard, July 29, 

2015, or upon initial startup, whichever 

is later. 

The effective and compliance dates 

finalized in this action are consistent 

with the dates we presented in the 2014 

supplemental proposal. 

H. What is the status of the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT 

standard amendments under CAA 

sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS 

Manufacturing Lines? 

We are not finalizing the 

formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol 

standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) 

and (3) for RS manufacturing lines in 

this final action. On November 25, 2011 

(76 FR 72791), we proposed to 

discontinue use of formaldehyde as a 

surrogate for phenol and methanol and 

we proposed formaldehyde, methanol 

and phenol emission limits for RS and 

FA lines. On April 15, 2013 (72 FR 

22387), we proposed revised emission 

limits for RS lines based on clarification 

of test data received from the industry 

during the comment period. We 

explained that since the 1999 

promulgation of the MACT standards, 

many companies had discontinued the 

use of formaldehyde. However, they did 

not distinguish between the bonded 

lines that still used formaldehyde and 

those that did not. We had, therefore, 

included some data for HAP-free lines 

along with the data for lines still using 

formaldehyde when we developed the 

emission limits proposed in the 

November 2011 proposal (78 FR 22387). 

In the November 2014 supplemental 

proposal (79 FR 68203), we also 

proposed revised formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol emission limits 

for new RS lines as a result of our 

updated approach for evaluating limited 

datasets (79 FR 68023–24). 

The EPA is not finalizing these 

proposed CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 

(3) standards in this action because we 

believe the data that we relied on in 

proposing these standards are not 

sufficiently related to current operations 

or emissions from RS bonded lines. The 

emissions and process data available to 

EPA were collected beginning in 2003. 

As previously explained, since that 

time, sources have phased out the use 

of a phenol/formaldehyde binder from 

approximately 95 percent of the lines on 

which it was previously used. We have 

also found out that sources often can no 

longer either identify the products that 

were tested or on the lines on which 

those products had been manufactured. 

Moreover, when sources can identify 

the products that were tested, those 

products are now produced using a 

HAP-free binder, and the product lines 

that now operate using a phenol/

formaldehyde binder do not bear 

similarity in size, end use, production 

rate or loss on ignition (LOI) percent to 

the tested product line. As a result, the 

data no longer represent current 

industry conditions, most notably the 

significant reduction in the use of 

phenol/formaldehyde binders in wool 

fiberglass manufacturing. Consequently, 

we have issued a CAA section 114 ICR 

to wool fiberglass facilities to obtain 

updated formaldehyde, methanol, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45294 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

phenol emissions and process data for 

RS manufacturing lines. 

I. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing NESHAP? 

The requirements for electronic 

reporting of performance test data for 

wool fiberglass manufacturing major 

sources are the same as the 

requirements for the mineral wool 

production source category. See section 

III.G of this preamble for a description 

of the requirements. 

VI. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category (major sources)? 

For each issue, this section provides 

a description of what we proposed and 

what we are finalizing for the issue, the 

EPA’s rationale for the final decisions 

and amendments and a summary of key 

comments and responses. For all 

comments not discussed in this 

preamble, comment summaries and the 

EPA’s responses can be found in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042. 

A. Residual Risk Review for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 

Category (Major Sources) 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f) for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category (major sources)? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we 

conducted a residual risk assessment 

and presented the results of this 

assessment, along with our proposed 

decisions regarding risk acceptability 

and ample margin of safety, in the 

November 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 

72801). Based on the inhalation risk 

assessment, we estimated that the MIR 

could be as high as 40-in-1 million due 

to actual emissions and up to 60-in-1 

million due to MACT-allowable 

emissions, mainly due to formaldehyde 

and hexavalent chromium emissions. 

We stated that the risk levels due to 

actual and MACT-allowable emissions 

were acceptable; however, we proposed 

an emission limit for total chromium 

(0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled) 

in order to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. 

In the April 2013 supplemental 

proposal, we revised the draft risk 

assessment to reflect new emissions 

data for hexavalent chromium that we 

collected from all glass-melting furnaces 

available for testing in response to our 

October 28, 2011, CAA section 114 ICR. 

These revisions reduced our estimate of 

risk from actual emissions when 

compared to the risk assessment 

conducted for the November 2011 

proposal. The risk from wool fiberglass 

manufacturing was driven by 

formaldehyde and hexavalent 

chromium. The MIR for actual baseline 

emissions decreased from 40-in-1- 

million to 20-in-1 million 

(formaldehyde), with the acute 

noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the 

REL and at 2 for the AEGL–1 

(formaldehyde). The maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI value based on 

actual emissions remained at 0.2 with 

emissions of formaldehyde dominating 

those impacts, indicating no significant 

potential for chronic noncancer impacts. 

In the November 2014 supplemental 

proposal, we presented the revised draft 

risk assessment to reflect updates to the 

model and model libraries and also 

retained the proposed emission limits 

for chromium compounds for existing 

and new gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces. These revisions did not 

significantly change our estimate of risk 

from actual emissions when compared 

to the risk assessment conducted for the 

April 2013 supplemental proposal (79 

FR 68020). The risk from wool fiberglass 

manufacturing was driven by 

formaldehyde and hexavalent 

chromium and continued to be well 

within a level we consider to be 

acceptable. The MIR for actual baseline 

emissions remained 20-in-1 million 

(formaldehyde), with the acute 

noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the 

REL and decreased from 2 to 1 for the 

AEGL–1 (formaldehyde). The maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based 

on actual emissions decreased from 0.2 

to 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde 

dominating those impacts, indicating no 

significant potential for chronic 

noncancer impacts. Overall, we 

considered the risk to be acceptable. 

Based on information provided by the 

industry, 95 percent of the RS lines no 

longer use phenol-formaldehyde binders 

and are no longer major sources. 

However, this phase out is not reflected 

in the facility file data on which the risk 

assessment was based. Throughout the 

wool fiberglass manufacturing industry, 

these binders continued to be phased 

out as this rule was developed. The risk 

analysis we conducted for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category overstates the risk because of 

the continuing phase out. Therefore, we 

believe the risks from wool fiberglass 

manufacturing from actual emissions 

are lower than the risks we estimated. 

2. How did the risk review change for 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category (major sources)? 

The baseline risk assessment has not 

changed since the November 2014 

supplemental proposal. The MIR based 

on actual emissions remains at 20-in-1 

million with the acute noncancer HQ 

remaining at 30 for the REL and 1 for 

the AEGL–1 (formaldehyde). The 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value based on actual emissions is 0.1 

with emissions of formaldehyde 

dominating those impacts, indicating no 

significant potential for chronic 

noncancer impacts. 

The MIR based on MACT-allowable 

emissions could be as high as 60-in-1 

million, which we believe to be a 

conservative estimate based on four 

factors: (1) At one time, there were at 

least 60 RS lines in the industry, (2) 

industry has stated that 95 percent of RS 

lines no longer use formaldehyde as a 

binder, (3) Industry has stated that there 

are only 5 RS lines left that use a 

phenol/formaldehyde binder, and (4) 

Title V permit records indicate that 20 

out of a total of 30 facilities have 

completely phased out their use of 

formaldehyde as a raw material 

throughout the facility. 

We conducted a new assessment of 

the risks remaining after 

implementation of these final rule 

revisions. The revised assessment of 

post-control risks reflects the 

adjustment of the chromium 

compounds emission limit and the 

EPA’s deferral of setting standards for 

formaldehyde, methanol and phenol 

from RS lines. Specifically, the risk 

assessment takes into account the 

change in the chromium compounds 

emission limit for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces from 0.00006 pounds 

of chromium per ton of glass pulled to 

0.00025 pounds of chromium per ton of 

glass pulled, the emission limits for 

formaldehyde at new and existing FA 

lines (2.6 pounds per ton and 5.6 

pounds per ton, respectively) and the 

current emission estimates for 

formaldehyde, methanol and phenol 

from RS lines. The MIR for cancer after 

implementation of the RTR could be up 

to 60-in-1 million (equal to the current 

risk estimates for allowables) but, as 

discussed above, this is a conservative, 

upper-end estimate. Consequently, we 

believe risks are significantly lower than 

estimated and the standards provide an 

ample margin of safety. 

Emissions of chromium compounds 

are a secondary risk driver to 

formaldehyde, and the risk is 7-in-1 

million based on current actual 

emissions. It is important to note that, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45295 

6The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment 

Methodologies is available at: http://

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

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

7U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific 

Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical 

Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference 

Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. 

EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/061, and 

available on-line at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. 

even though risks are acceptable, the 

health risks from hexavalent chromium 

emissions from wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities could be much 

higher in the future without a chromium 

compounds emission limit. To capture 

this scenario, we conducted an auxiliary 

risk analysis in which we assumed all 

wool fiberglass furnaces emitted 

hexavalent chromium at the same rate 

as the reasonable highest-emitting 

furnace. The results of the auxiliary risk 

analysis showed that, in the absence of 

a chromium emission limit and with 

furnaces emitting at the assumed 

emission rate, risk at four facilities is 

expected to increase over time to greater 

than 100-in-1 million, due to increasing 

chromium emissions occurring with 

furnace age. Therefore, we determined 

that the chromium emission limit in the 

final rule, which will limit the MIR 

cancer risk from hexavalent chromium 

emissions from this category to no 

higher than 3-in-1 million, is necessary 

to provide an ample margin of safety. 

Regarding chromium compounds, as 

discussed above, we received comments 

on the proposed chromium compounds 

limit that indicated that a newly-rebuilt 

furnace, which we believe is the likely 

compliance technology, may not be able 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

proposed emission limit. The comment 

was based on one specific example from 

the 2012 test data that showed a 1-year 

old gas-fired glass-melting furnace 

emitting approximately 0.0002 pounds 

chromium per ton of glass. We reevaluated the proposed chromium 

compounds limit in light of information 

on this technology, and based on the 

data available, we have revised the 

chromium compounds limit and are 

now finalizing an emissions limit of 

0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled 

for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We 

conducted an assessment of the risk 

attributable to all HAP for each facility 

and determined that increasing the 

chromium compound emission limit 

from 0.00006 to 0.00025 pounds total 

chromium per ton of glass pulled has a 

minimal effect on the post-RTR risks 

because these risks are largely driven by 

formaldehyde emissions. Specifically, at 

the chromium compounds emission 

limit of 0.00025 pounds total chromium 

per ton of glass pulled, the MIR due to 

only chromium emissions for the source 

category is 3-in-1 million. 

The results of the risk assessment are 

presented in more detail in the final 

residual risk memorandum titled 

‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Mineral Wool Production and Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 

Categories in Support of the June 2015 

Final Rule,’’ which can be found in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

1042. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the risk review for Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing (major sources), and 

what are our responses? 

We received comments in support of 

and against our proposed determination 

of risk acceptability, ample margin of 

safety analysis, and requirement for 

additional control. A summary of these 

comments and our responses can be 

found in the comment summary and 

response document available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1042). The following is a 

summary of the key comments received 

regarding the risk assessment for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category and our responses to these 

comments. Additional comments on the 

risk assessment and our responses can 

be found in the comment summary and 

response document available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1042). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA should find the acute health 

risk from wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities to be unacceptable. The 

commenter noted that the EPA’s 

assessment in the November 2011 

proposal found an acute risk of 30 for 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category and argued that the EPA 

should find the health risk to be 

unacceptable under CAA section 

112(f)(2) based on this acute risk. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

has a presumption that an HQ below 1 

is safe, that the EPA has stated that a HQ 

less than or equal to 1 indicates that 

adverse noncancer effects are not likely 

to occur, and that exposure below that 

threshold level is safe. The commenter 

added that the EPA did not adequately 

explain why the formaldehyde risks 

were found to be acceptable although 

they are 30 times higher than the 

threshold. 

The commenter asserted that, by 

applying the outdated integrated risk 

information system (IRIS) dose-response 

values in determining formaldehyde 

inhalation exposure risk, the EPA is not 

basing the proposed rule on the best 

available science. The commenter urged 

the EPA to revise the proposed rule to 

accurately convey the best available 

science and a weight-of-evidence 

approach in compliance with the 

Information Quality Act (IQA) 

Guidelines and Executive Order 13563. 

In particular, the commenter argued that 

the EPA should reject the 1991 IRIS 

dose-response value and incorporate the 

Chemical Industry Institute of 

Toxicology (CIIT, 1999) cancer doseresponse value for formaldehyde. 

Response: As discussed in sections 

V.A and VI.A of this preamble, we 

revised the risk assessment for wool 

fiberglass facilities for the November 

2014 supplemental proposal. For wool 

fiberglass facilities, the MIR for actual 

baseline emissions remained 20-in-1 

million (formaldehyde), with the acute 

noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the 

REL and decreased from 2 to 1 for the 

AEGL–1 (formaldehyde). The maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based 

on actual emissions decreased from 0.2 

to 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde 

dominating those impacts, indicating no 

significant potential for chronic 

noncancer impacts. We found that the 

risks were acceptable. 

We note that the acute risks are based 

on an REL value, which is defined as 

‘‘the concentration level at or below 

which no adverse health effects are 

anticipated for specified exposure 

duration.’’ Moreover, we note that the 

acute risk assessment is a worst-case 

assessment. For example, the acute 

assessment assumes worst-case 

meteorology, peak emissions and an 

individual being located at the site of 

maximum concentration for an hour. 

Taken together, the EPA does not 

believe that in all RTR reviews, HQ 

values must be less than or equal to 1. 

Rather, the EPA finds that acute risks 

must be judged on a case-by-case basis 

in the context of all the available health 

evidence and risk analyses. 

To better characterize the potential 

health risks associated with estimated 

acute exposures to HAP, and in 

response to a key recommendation from 

the Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) 

peer review of the EPA’s RTR risk 

assessment methodologies,6 we 

generally examine a wider range of 

available acute health metrics (e.g., 

RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our 

chronic risk assessments. This is in 

response to the SAB’s acknowledgement 

that there are generally more data gaps 

and inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. In some cases, when 

Reference Value Arrays 7 for HAP have 

been developed, we consider additional 

acute values (i.e., occupational and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45296 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

8U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific 

Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical 

Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference 

Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. 

EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/061, and 

available on-line at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. 

international values) to provide a more 

complete risk characterization. The EPA 

uses AEGL and Emergency Response 

Planning Guidelines (ERPG) values 

(when available) in conjunction with 

REL values (again, when available) to 

characterize potential acute health risks. 

However, it is often the case that HAP 

do not have all of these acute reference 

benchmark values. In these instances, 

the EPA describes the potential acute 

health risk in relation to the acute 

health values that are available. 

Importantly, when interpreting the 

results, we are careful to identify the 

benchmark being used and the health 

implications associated with any 

specific benchmark being exceeded. By 

definition, the acute California reference 

exposure level (CA–REL) represents a 

health-protective level of exposure, with 

no risk anticipated below those levels, 

even for repeated exposures; however, 

the health risk from higher-level 

exposures is unknown. Therefore, when 

a CA–REL is exceeded and an AEGL–1 

or ERPG–1 level is available (i.e., levels 

at which mild effects are anticipated in 

the general public for a single exposure), 

we have used them as a second 

comparative measure. Historically, 

comparisons of the estimated maximum 

off-site 1-hour exposure levels have not 

been typically made to occupational 

levels for the purpose of characterizing 

public health risks in RTR assessments. 

This is because occupational ceiling 

values are not generally considered 

protective for the general public since 

they are designed to protect the worker 

population (presumed healthy adults) 

for short duration (i.e., less than 15 

minute) increases in exposure. As a 

result, for most chemicals, the 15- 

minute occupational ceiling values are 

set at levels higher than a 1-hour AEGL– 

1, making comparisons to them 

irrelevant unless the AEGL–1 or ERPG– 

1 levels are exceeded. Such is not the 

case when comparing the available 

acute inhalation health effect reference 

values for formaldehyde.8

Thus, while this means we cannot 

rule out the potential for acute concerns 

due to formaldehyde emissions from 

these facilities, we note that the worstcase acute HQs are based on 

conservative assumptions (e.g., worstcase meteorology coinciding with peak 

short-term 1-hour emissions from each 

emission point, with a person located at 

the point of maximum concentration 

during that hour). We also note that, as 

stated earlier, the emissions estimates 

for formaldehyde are expected to be an 

overestimate of emissions, further 

supporting our determination that acute 

risks are not a significant concern for 

the wool fiberglass source category. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

AEGLs or ERPGs were developed for 

accidental release emergency planning 

and are not appropriate for assessing 

daily human exposure to toxic air 

pollutants because they do not include 

adequate safety and uncertainty factors. 

The commenter stated that they are not 

meant to evaluate the acute impacts 

from routine emissions that occur over 

the life of a facility and cannot be relied 

upon to protect the public from the 

adverse effects of exposure to toxic air 

pollutants. The commenter concluded 

that their use is not appropriate in risk 

assessments and urged the EPA to 

increase its reliance on the California 

RELs to address acute exposures in the 

residual risk assessments. 

Response: The EPA does not rely 

exclusively upon AEGL or ERPG values 

for assessment of acute exposures. 

Rather, the EPA’s approach is to 

consider various acute health effect 

reference values (see the preamble to the 

November 2011 proposal (76 FR 

72781)), including the California REL, in 

assessing the potential for risks from 

acute exposures. To better characterize 

the potential health risks associated 

with estimated acute exposures to HAP, 

and in response to a key 

recommendation from the SAB’s peer 

review of the EPA’s RTR risk assessment 

methodologies, we generally examine a 

wider range of available acute health 

metrics (e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than we do 

for our chronic risk assessments. This is 

in response to the SAB’s 

acknowledgement that there are 

generally more data gaps and 

inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. In some cases, when 

Reference Value Arrays for HAP have 

been developed, we consider additional 

acute values (i.e., occupational and 

international values) to provide a more 

complete risk characterization. As 

discussed in the preamble to the 

November 2011 proposal, the exposure 

guidelines the EPA considers depends 

on which exposure guidelines are 

available for the various HAP emitted. 

The EPA uses AEGL and ERPG values 

(when available) in conjunction with 

REL values (when available) to 

characterize potential acute health risks. 

However, it is often the case that HAP 

do not have all of these acute reference 

benchmark values. In these instances, 

the EPA describes the potential acute 

health risk in relation to the acute 

health values that are available. 

Importantly, when interpreting the 

results, we are careful to identify the 

benchmark being used and the health 

implications associated with any 

specific benchmark being exceeded. 

Comment: According to one 

commenter, the EPA‘s multipathway 

risk assessment fell short because the 

EPA did not use ‘‘allowable’’ emissions 

for this assessment and the proposed 

rule shows multipathway risks that are 

60 times greater than the EPA’s 

threshold. The commenter stated that 

the EPA acknowledged in its 2014 risk 

assessment that the emissions allowed 

by the standard may be up to 3 times 

greater than actual emissions for phenol, 

methanol, and formaldehyde, such that 

the HQ of 30 could be 3 times higher 

based on allowable emissions. The 

commenter stated that by using actual 

emissions, the EPA’s analysis is likely to 

be an underestimate of the health risks 

from multipathway routes of exposure. 

The commenter supports the EPA’s use 

of ‘‘allowable’’ as well as ‘‘actual’’ 

emissions to assess inhalation risk. 

Response: Consistent with previous 

risk assessments, the EPA considers 

both allowable and actual emissions in 

assessing chronic risks under CAA 

section 112(f)(2) (See, e.g., National 

Emission Standards for Coke Oven 

Batteries (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 

2005); proposed and final National 

Emission Standards for Organic 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry (71 FR 34428, 

June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76603, 

December 21, 2006). This approach is 

both reasonable and consistent with the 

flexibility inherent in the Benzene 

NESHAP framework for assessing 

acceptable risk and ample margin of 

safety, as developed in the Benzene 

NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 

1989). As a general matter, modeling 

allowable emission levels is inherently 

reasonable since this reflects the 

maximum level sources could emit and 

still comply with national emission 

standards. But, it is also reasonable to 

consider actual emissions, where such 

data are available, in the acceptable risk 

and ample margin of safety analyses. 

See National Emission Standards for 

Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19992, 

19998, April 15, 2005). The commenter 

claims that limiting our review to actual 

emissions would be inconsistent with 

the applicability section of Part 63 rules. 

As explained, however, we did not limit 

our review to actual emissions. 

The commenter also urged the agency 

to rely on allowable emissions for the 

purpose of our acute assessment. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45297 

use of allowable emissions was not 

considered due to the conservative 

assumptions used to gauge worst-case 

potential acute health effects. The 

conservative assumptions built into the 

acute health risk screening analysis 

include: (1) Use of peak 1-hour 

emissions that are, on average, 10 times 

the annual average 1-hour emission 

rates; (2) that all emission points 

experience peak emissions 

concurrently; (3) worst-case 

meteorology (from 1 year of local 

meteorology); and (4) that a person is 

located downwind at the point of 

maximum impact during this same 1- 

hour period. Thus, performing an acute 

screen based on allowable emissions 

would be overly conservative and at 

best, of questionable utility to decision 

makers. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the EPA does not have authority to 

consider ‘‘total facility’’ emissions in 

conducting the residual risk 

assessments for a given source category. 

The commenter argued that it would be 

impossible for the EPA to fulfill its 

unambiguous obligation for CAA 

section 112(f) standards to protect 

public health with an ample margin of 

safety in cases where facilities contain 

sources in a category where the 8-year 

deadline for conducting the CAA 

section 112(f) risk review precedes the 

adoption of MACT standards for other 

sources at the facilities. One commenter 

added that CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) 

requires EPA to promulgate standards 

on a source category basis. Another 

commenter continued that this 

provision unambiguously requires the 

CAA section 112(f) risk assessment to be 

focused exclusively on ‘‘emissions from 

a source in the category or subcategory,’’ 

asserting that the EPA does not have 

authority to consider emissions from 

any sources other than those in the 

source category or subcategory under 

review at that time. 

Response: We disagree that examining 

facility-wide risk in a risk assessment 

conducted under CAA section 112(f) 

exceeds the EPA’s authority. The 

development of facility-wide risk 

estimates provides additional 

information about the potential 

cumulative risks in the vicinity of the 

RTR sources, as one means of informing 

potential risk-based decisions about the 

RTR source category in question. While 

we recognize that, because these risk 

estimates were derived from facilitywide emissions estimates which have 

not generally been subjected to the same 

level of engineering review as the source 

category emission estimates, they may 

be less certain than our risk estimates 

for the source category in question, they 

remain important for providing context 

as long as their uncertainty is taken into 

consideration. 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly 

preserves our use of the two-step 

process for developing standards to 

address residual risk and interpret 

‘‘acceptable risk’’ and ‘‘ample margin of 

safety’’ as developed in the Benzene 

NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 

1989). In the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA 

rejected approaches that would have 

mandated consideration of background 

levels of pollution in assessing the 

acceptability of risk, concluding that 

‘‘. . . comparison of acceptable risk 

should not be associated with levels in 

polluted urban air. With respect to 

considering other sources of risk from 

benzene exposure and determining the 

acceptable risk level for all exposures to 

benzene, the EPA considers this 

inappropriate because only the risk 

associated with the emissions under 

consideration are relevant to the 

regulation being established and, 

consequently, the decision being made.’’ 

(54 FR 38044, 38061, September 14, 

1989). 

Although not appropriate for 

consideration in the determination of 

acceptable risk, we note that 

background risks or contributions to risk 

from sources outside the source category 

under review could be one of the 

relevant factors considered in the ample 

margin of safety determination, along 

with cost and economic factors, 

technological feasibility, and other 

factors. Background risks and 

contributions to risk from sources 

outside the facilities under review were 

not considered in the ample margin of 

safety determination for this source 

category, mainly because of the 

significant uncertainties associated with 

emissions estimates for such sources. 

Our approach here is consistent with 

the approach we took regarding this 

issue in the Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP (HON) RTR (71 FR 76603, 

December 21, 2006), which the court 

upheld in the face of claims that the 

EPA had not adequately considered 

background. 

In our November 2011 proposal, we 

explained that for these source 

categories, there are no other significant 

HAP emissions sources present at wool 

fiberglass manufacturing and mineral 

wool production facilities beyond those 

included in the source category. We also 

explained that all significant HAP 

sources have been included in the 

source category risk analysis. We 

therefore concluded that the facilitywide risk is essentially the same as the 

source category risk and that no separate 

facility-wide analysis was necessary (76 

FR 72783, November 25, 2011). Our 

evaluation of facility-wide risks did not 

change our decisions under CAA 

section 112(f)(2) about acceptability and 

ample margin of safety of the risks 

associated with the wool fiberglass 

source categories. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach and final decisions for the risk 

review for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category (major 

sources)? 

For the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category, we have 

determined that the current MACT 

standards reduce risk to an acceptable 

level. We have further evaluated the 

cost, emissions reductions, energy 

implications and cost effectiveness of 

the total chromium compounds 

emission limits being promulgated in 

this final rule and have determined that 

they are cost effective, technically 

feasible and will provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health 

and prevent adverse environmental 

effects. 

For chromium emissions, we are 

finalizing the emission limit of 0.00025 

pounds total chromium per ton of glass 

pulled for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces, under CAA section 112(f)(2). 

This is based on our assessment of 

emissions from newly-rebuilt gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces. Because 

commenters provided new information 

indicating that cullet use is tied to 

increasing chromium emissions from 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, we are 

also requiring that facilities establish the 

materials mix, including the percentages 

of raw materials and cullet, used in gasfired glass-melting furnaces during the 

performance test conducted to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

chromium emission limit. Affected 

sources must maintain the percentage of 

cullet in the material mix at or below 

the level established during the most 

recent performance test showing 

compliance with the standard. If a gasfired glass-melting furnace uses 100 

percent cullet during the most recent 

performance test showing compliance 

with the standard, then monitoring of 

the cullet use on that furnace is not 

required until the next annual 

performance test. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45298 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Technology Review for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 

Category (Major Sources) 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category (major sources)? 

As discussed in the 2011 proposal (76 

FR 72803–72804, 72798), we conducted 

a technology review for FA and RS 

bonded lines and for furnaces that 

focused on identifying and evaluating 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies for the 

emission sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category that have 

occurred since the 1999 MACT rules 

were promulgated. We consulted the 

EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse to identify potential 

technology advances for processes 

similar to those covered by the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP, as 

well as the costs, non-air impacts, and 

energy implications associated with the 

use of these technologies. 

We also requested information from 

facilities regarding developments in 

practices, processes, or control 

technologies, and conducted site visits, 

held meetings with industry 

representatives, and reviewed other 

information sources, such as technical 

literature, state and local permitting 

agency databases and industrysupported databases. For more 

information, see the ‘‘Technology 

Review for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Source Category 

Memorandum’’ in the docket to this 

rule. 

Subsequent to the November 2011 

proposal, we announced that we had 

issued a CAA section 114 ICR to collect 

emissions data and other information on 

glass-melting furnaces in order to 

regulate area sources in a future action. 

This resulted in a near complete dataset 

for emissions test data on all wool 

fiberglass furnaces, with the only 

exceptions being furnaces at facilities 

that were closed or that were shut down 

at the time of the 2012 testing. The data 

also indicated that three gas-fired glassmelting furnaces had been rebuilt and 

retested, and we also had emissions test 

data for these three furnaces for the 

years before and after the rebuild. 

a. Technology Review for Reduction of 

PM From Furnaces 

For our technology review under CAA 

section 112(d)(6), for PM emissions from 

glass-melting furnaces, we identified 

advances in control measures for PM 

emissions. These included 

improvements and advances in control 

technology, such as application of ESPs, 

as well as developments in furnace 

design and the use of high-chromium 

furnace refractories that had been made 

since promulgation of the 1999 

NESHAP. 

Our technology review included 

glass-melting furnaces at both area and 

major sources. As explained in our 

April 2013 supplemental proposal, the 

number of area sources is constantly 

increasing as a result of the definition of 

‘‘wool fiberglass facility’’ in Subpart 

NNN. For example, in 2002, two out of 

33 facilities were area sources, but by 

December 2012, 20 facilities were area 

sources (78 FR 22377). As also 

previously explained, there are no 

differences between the furnaces used at 

major and area sources (78 FR 22377). 

Therefore, we believed it was 

appropriate to consider all furnaces in 

the technology review, under CAA 

section 112(d)(6). 

In our November 2011 proposal, 

based on the responses to survey data 

regarding the performance of existing 

control measures, we proposed an 

emission limit of 0.014 pounds of PM 

per ton of glass pulled for glass-melting 

furnaces, under CAA section 112(d)(6). 

In the April 2013 supplemental 

proposal, in response to comments we 

received on our November 2011 

proposal, we revised the PM limit for 

furnaces to 0.33 pounds per ton of glass 

pulled in order to be consistent with our 

intentions to set the new limit based on 

technology review. 

We did not propose any further 

revisions to the proposed PM limit in 

the November 2014 supplemental 

proposal. 

b. Technology Review for Reduction of 

Chromium From Furnaces 

In our November 2011 proposal, we 

identified refractories having a high 

content of chromium, and their use in 

wool fiberglass furnaces, as a new 

development affecting the emissions of 

chromium compounds from sources 

since promulgation of the 1999 

NESHAP. We reviewed the use of 

chromium refractories (as compared to 

non-chromium refractories), as well as 

other control technologies, such as 

caustic scrubbers. We analyzed the 

technical feasibility and the estimated 

impacts (e.g., costs, emissions 

reductions, risk reductions) of applying 

these developments. We then 

determined, based on impacts and 

feasibility, whether it was necessary to 

propose amendments to the regulation 

to require any of the identified 

developments. 

We found that, while the furnaces and 

control technologies are generally the 

same as those used at promulgation of 

the MACT standard in 1999, there have 

been some developments in furnace 

design and preference in control 

equipment. We found that 

developments in refractory technology 

and in furnace design are inextricably 

linked. Oxyfuel furnaces were not 

widely used prior to 1999 in the wool 

fiberglass industry, due to a number of 

factors, especially refractory degradation 

in the wool fiberglass furnace 

environment. At that time, new 

technology of the oxyfuel furnace 

constructed using conventional 

refractories of that time (e.g., aluminasilicate, zirconium) limited the furnace 

life to 4 or 5 years. As a result, air-gas 

and electric furnaces predominated in 

the years prior to 1999. 

With the advent of new refractory 

technology, new furnace designs were 

constructed that could be expected to 

last longer. With the industry focus 

upon new furnace designs and 

technology, the research to develop 

refractories that could withstand high 

temperatures, thermal shock and 

corrosive materials yielded the 

development of new types of chromium 

refractory products that could be used 

for construction of the high-temperature 

oxyfuel furnace. 

As a result, the wool fiberglass 

industry began a trend toward oxyfuel 

furnaces constructed using highchromium refractory products, a trend 

that commenters noted is expected to 

continue into the future. This gives rise 

to increased chromium emissions as a 

result of both wool fiberglass raw 

material formulation (corrosivity) and 

associated refractory degradation (i.e., 

furnace wear). We explained the 

mechanisms of chromium emissions at 

length in our April 2013 supplemental 

proposal (78 FR 22379–22382) and in 

our technology review memorandum. 

We therefore found that the 

development of new types of chromium 

refractories that could and would be 

used to construct entire gas-fired glassmelting furnaces for wool fiberglass 

manufacturing is a development that 

largely took place after promulgation of 

the MACT standard in 1999. We also 

proposed a total chromium compounds 

limit of 0.00006 pounds per ton of glass 

pulled for all glass-melting furnaces. 

In the 2013 supplemental proposal, 

we did not revise the chromium 

emission limit for furnaces; however, 

we explained that there were two 

general types of furnaces used in this 

industry: Gas-fired (which include both 

air-gas and oxyfuel furnaces) and 

electric furnaces (which include both 

steel shell and cold-top electric 

furnaces). We proposed in the April 

2013 supplemental proposal to limit the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45299 

9 64 FR 31695 (June 14, 1999). 

applicability of the total chromium 

compounds emission limit to gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces for two reasons: 

(1) Electric furnaces do not have 

chromium refractories above the glass 

melt line, and (2) they do not reach the 

operating temperatures necessary to 

convert significant amounts of trivalent 

to hexavalent chromium. As a result, 

electric furnaces do not emit significant 

amounts of chromium compounds. 

We did not propose to revise the 

chromium compounds limit in our 

November 2014 supplemental proposal. 

However, based on comments received 

on our April 2013 supplemental 

proposal, we proposed that sources 

would be likely to rebuild the furnace 

rather than install a sodium hydroxide 

scrubber as previously proposed, due to 

revisions to our cost estimate for this 

control option. 

2. How did the technology review 

change for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category (major 

sources)? 

We did not make any changes to the 

technology review for PM from furnaces 

since the November 2014 supplemental 

proposal, and we are finalizing the 

previously proposed emission limit for 

PM, which is 0.33 lb per ton of glass 

pulled. 

For chromium compounds, based on 

the public comments and information 

for glass-melting furnaces received on 

our November 2014 supplemental 

proposal, we believe it is necessary to 

revise our technology review under 

CAA section 112(d)(6) for gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces in the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category. Data collected on gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces in 2010 and 2012 

show that three furnaces tested their 

emissions for chromium in 2010, then 

shut down or repaired, and then 

retested in 2012 using the same test 

methods and protocols. In each case, 

chromium emissions were reduced by 

about 2/3 as a result of having rebuilt 

the furnaces. In two of the three cases, 

the chromium emissions before the 

repair or rebuild were higher than the 

proposed limit (0.00006 lb/ton of glass). 

In a third case, a furnace that measured 

0.0006 lb/ton of glass in 2010 was 

rebuilt and retested for the 2012 ICR. 

The second test measured chromium at 

0.0002 lb/ton of glass, a level slightly 

higher than our proposed chromium 

emission limit. 

While we recognize that the rebuilt 

furnaces had different designs 

depending on the company’s objectives 

at the particular facility, at this time we 

believe the highest emitting rebuilt 

furnace was well designed for its 

intended use. This furnace was rebuilt 

only one year before testing, at a cost to 

the company of between $10–12 

million. As this is a technology review 

standard, we consider cost when 

evaluating the technology. We consider 

it reasonable to evaluate the technology 

based on the emission limit achieved by 

new furnaces, and we are increasing the 

chromium limit above what was 

previously proposed to account for this 

new furnace. 

The final chromium limit also 

prevents operation of another furnace 

that could emit chromium at the 

reasonable high-end rate of the highest 

emitting furnace, as characterized in 

section VI of this preamble. Finally, we 

evaluated the cost, using our revised 

economic analysis, of compliance with 

the final limit and found that these costs 

are reasonable. 

Specifically, we are revising the 

estimated costs of rebuilding the furnace 

as an option to comply with the 

chromium limit. We have determined, 

based on the revised costs and data 

regarding the level of chromium 

emissions that is achieved by rebuilt 

furnaces, that it is necessary, pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6), to revise the 

proposed emission limit for chromium 

from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. 

We are finalizing a limit of 0.00025 

pounds chromium compounds per ton 

of glass pulled. This is a higher limit for 

chromium compounds than previously 

proposed, because data show that this 

level can be achieved by furnaces that 

are rebuilt, while the previously 

proposed level was shown to be lower 

than the level supported by the data 

provided by industry. We explain our 

decision further in the responses to key 

comments below and in the Technology 

Review Memo for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category, 

available in the docket to the rule. 

We revised the cost estimate for 

rebuilding a gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace; however, we did not revise our 

finding from our technology review that 

rebuilding the furnace is an effective 

approach for reducing chromium 

emissions. We also note, from our 

technology review, that other options to 

reduce chromium from furnaces are 

available to wool fiberglass 

manufacturers. These include raw 

material substitution and installation of 

a properly-designed caustic (sodium 

hydroxide) scrubber to the outlet of the 

dry electrostatic precipitator (DESP). 

These other options are presented in 

more detail in the Economic Analysis, 

which accompanied the April 2013 

supplemental proposal. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the technology review, and what are 

our responses? 

We received comments in support of 

and against our proposed technology 

review. The following is a summary of 

the key comments received regarding 

the technology review for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category and our responses. Additional 

comments on the technology review and 

responses can be found in the comment 

summary and response document 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA’s depiction in the 2011 

proposal (76 FR 72770, November 25, 

2011) of high-chromium refractories and 

furnace control technologies as new 

technology developments is inaccurate, 

as demonstrated by the following 

evidence: (1) High-chromium 

refractories have been used in the wool 

fiberglass industry since the early 1980s; 

(2) the EPA was aware in 1999 that 

chromium was emitted from wool 

fiberglass plants, as demonstrated by the 

following statement in its 1999 

promulgation preamble ‘‘The hazardous 

air pollutants (HAP) emitted by the 

facilities covered by this rule include 

compounds of three metals (arsenic, 

chromium, lead) and three organic 

HAP,’’ 9 although chromium emissions 

(and all metal HAP) at that time were 

insignificant and PM was chosen as a 

surrogate for those low emissions; and 

(3) chromium emission reductions have 

been achieved by the industry since 

initial MACT implementation in 1999 

without using any new control 

technologies. 

Response: Regarding the 

characterization of high chromium 

refractories as a new technology, 

chromium refractories for use in the 

glass industry have been a developing 

technology. According to information 

provided by the wool fiberglass and 

refractories industries as part of this 

rulemaking, significant problems with 

their use in the furnace had to be 

overcome before wool fiberglass 

furnaces could be constructed using 

them. For example, when fused-cast 

refractories started to be developed 

using high chromium materials, some 

companies discovered ways to 

manufacture those products that 

maintained the integrity of the 

refractory over a long time and in 

extreme temperatures, making these 

products candidates for trials in the 

wool fiberglass industry. At least two 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45300 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

10The North American Refractories Company 

(NARCO) and the Saint-Gobain Corporation Web 

sites advertise product lines of refractories that are 

50%–95% chromium for use in the glass fiber and 

wool fiberglass industries. From NARCO’s Web site: 

‘‘Wool and C-Glass makers rely on NARCO’s 

extensive line of chrome-alumina materials, the 

SERV and JADE brands, available in standard 

pressed brick, large cast shapes, and Cast-in-Place 

linings. Supplying the complete furnace refractory 

package required for this application is a strength 

of NARCO’’. (http://www.anhrefractories.com/glassrefractory). From Saint-Gobain’s Web site: ‘‘High 

temperature sintered chromium oxide based 

refractories have unequalled resistance against high 

temperature corrosion by molten SiO2-Al2O3- 

Fe2O3-CaO/MgO slags and by certain glass wool 

compositions, in an oxidizing environment. SaintGobain Ceramics has pioneered and patented a 

unique range of chromium oxide-alumina-zirconia 

refractory compositions, marketed as . . .’’ (from 

http://www.refractories.saint-gobain.com/

Chromium-Oxide.aspx). 

major corporations 10 have developed 

high chrome refractory product lines 

since 1999, and they characterize these 

refractories on their Web sites as ‘new’ 

products developed for the fiberglass 

industry. Therefore, our characterization 

of these products as ‘new’ refers to the 

improvements in refractory and is not 

meant to imply that using chromium 

refractories, in and of itself, is new. 

Further, we noted in the November 

2011 proposal that we identified 

‘‘improvements’’ in PM emissions 

controls, not that we identified ‘‘new’’ 

controls. We acknowledged in both our 

November 2011 and April 2013 

supplemental proposals that sodium 

hydroxide scrubbers are not currently 

used in the wool fiberglass industry for 

removal of chromium, but that these 

controls are used in metallurgical 

processes and in the chromium 

electroplating industry for the removal 

of hexavalent chromium. We stated in 

those proposals that we were 

considering applying scrubber 

technology to this source category; 

however, as discussed in the 2014 

supplemental proposal (79 FR 68020– 

69024), the technology basis for the 

chromium standard is more frequent 

furnace rebuilds, not scrubber 

technology. 

Moreover, as we explained in our 

2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 

22380), the type of furnace used to 

produce wool fiberglass at the highest 

emitting wool fiberglass manufacturing 

source was the type of furnace that is 

expected to dominate the industry in 

the future as a new and very efficient 

energy source. The oxyfuel furnace was 

not identified in our 1999 MACT 

standard as a separate technology. 

While we acknowledge that wool 

fiberglass furnaces are not ‘new’ 

technologies, the oxyfuel furnace is both 

new to this industry and its use is 

increasing. As the industry has 

commented, air-gas furnaces are 

becoming increasingly difficult to 

permit, while an oxyfuel furnace has no 

such restrictions due to its low PM and 

NOX emissions profile. 

We are not changing our assessment 

of the industry controls as having 

improved since 1999, and we are 

lowering the PM limit in the final rule 

from 0.5 to 0.33 pounds PM per ton of 

glass pulled. This limit codifies the 

current good practices and PM controls 

within the industry while not imposing 

additional costs to industry. 

Regarding the commenter’s allegation 

that chromium emissions were 

insignificant in 1999, and on that basis 

the EPA should not set chromium limits 

for this industry, we do not agree. The 

EPA has the responsibility to regulate 

air toxics under section 112 and to 

protect the health and environment 

surrounding these facilities as we are 

doing in this final rule. Moreover, due 

to source testing at the wool fiberglass 

industry, we have more information 

now than we had in 1999, and the 

industry’s technology (that is, both the 

furnaces and refractories used) has 

changed. 

Regarding the statement that, since 

initial MACT implementation in 1999, 

industry has reduced chromium 

emissions without using any new 

control technologies, the industry did 

not provide data showing that 

chromium emissions have been 

reduced. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that chromium emissions from glass 

furnaces do not increase with age and 

that a relationship between furnace age 

and chromium emissions is not 

statistically significant. The commenter 

argued that erosion of the refractories is 

slow and there is no substantial increase 

in chromium emissions over time. The 

commenter noted that the EPA asserted 

that ‘‘when the glass-melting furnace is 

constructed using refractories 

containing high percentages of 

chromium, the emission levels of 

chromium compounds continuously 

increase over the life of the furnace 

according to the increasingly exposed 

refractory surface area.’’ The commenter 

noted that the EPA further explains: ‘‘It 

is our understanding that because of the 

corrosive properties of the molten glass, 

fresh refractory is continuously exposed 

to the molten glass along the metal/glass 

contact line in the glass-melting furnace 

process. This increases the surface area 

of the refractory that is exposed to the 

molten glass. As a result, when the glass 

furnace is constructed using high 

chromium refractories, the emission 

levels of chromium compounds 

continuously increase over the life of 

the furnace.’’ The commenter stated that 

this is not correct. The commenter 

explained that surface area of refractory 

exposed to molten glass does not 

substantially increase, nor do the 

chromium emissions as a result. The 

commenter asserted that the slight 

increase in surface area as between 

uneven and smooth surfaces of new 

brick exposed to molten glass cannot 

explain the major difference that the one 

source exhibited on chromium 

emissions. In fact, the commenter 

observed, the testing results provided by 

the industry included furnaces in all 

stages of their life. The commenter 

argued that given the nearly constant 

surface area as refractory erodes, and the 

homogeneous chrome content 

throughout the brick, there would be no 

substantial increased chromium 

emissions over time in the manner the 

EPA asserts. Furthermore, according to 

the commenter, the erosion process is 

very slow given the lifespan of these 

furnaces. 

The commenter stated that the EPA 

reports that ‘‘[o]ne industry 

spokesperson estimated that 20,000 

pounds per year of refractory are worn 

away from the inside walls of one wool 

fiberglass furnace and ducted to the 

control device before venting to the 

atmosphere.’’ The commenter 

contended that the context of that 

statement is that furnace emissions are 

going through control devices that 

already meet the definition of BACT for 

particulate and if this were normal for 

the industry furnaces, they could not 

have the long lives that they typically 

exhibit. 

The commenter provided a detailed 

statistical analysis to demonstrate that a 

furnace rebuild is not a viable control 

technology by using EPA’s data to show 

that a relationship between furnace age 

and chromium emissions is not 

statistically significant. Using the EPA’s 

data, the commenter also pointed out 

specific examples of apparent 

contradictions with the EPA’s 

conclusions, such as the data from one 

oxyfuel furnace showing lower 

chromium emissions at the end of its 

life than at the beginning of its life, and 

showing no change in emissions after a 

furnace rebuild. The commenter also 

points to data from another furnace 

demonstrating that emissions lessen 

with furnace age. 

The commenter contended that the 

proposed chromium limit is based on 

unproven technology, and that 

experimental and theoretical 

technologies do not constitute 

‘‘available’’ or ‘‘generally available’’ 

technology. The commenter provided 

the results of various analyses to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45301 

11EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042 at 

www.regulations.gov. 

demonstrate that there is no proven 

technology that can meet the proposed 

limit. The technologies represented in 

the commenter’s analyses include high 

efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, 

Venturi scrubber, 3-stage filter with 

water cleaning, membrane baghouse, 

and caustic scrubber. The commenter 

described these technologies as 

‘‘theoretical’’ and ‘‘unproven,’’ because 

they have never been installed at the 

outlet of a DESP serving a wool 

fiberglass manufacturing furnace. The 

commenter contended that a membrane 

baghouse is used to control emissions 

from the industry, but has not been 

demonstrated to achieve the proposed 

chromium limit. The commenter 

provided feedback from vendors of 

these technologies to demonstrate that 

pilot tests would need to be conducted 

prior to vendors committing to 

guaranteeing a specific performance 

level. The commenter also investigated 

the performance capacity of the sodium 

hydroxide scrubber and found that this 

technology is not transferable to a wool 

fiberglass manufacturing process. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters on the basis of direct 

statements, measurements and 

information on refractory content, 

production rates and furnace life 

received from industry sources. We 

issued a CAA section 114 ICR to all five 

wool fiberglass manufacturing 

companies and visited four of the 

manufacturing facilities in December 

2012 to improve our understanding of 

the source of the chromium emissions 

from this industry. The results of these 

activities include source test data, 

information on chromium content of 

refractories used to construct different 

parts of all types of furnaces, and a 

deeper understanding of the properties 

of materials and technologies used to 

manufacture wool fiberglass. We were 

able to confirm our earlier statements 

presenting our understanding of this 

industry. Specifically, we confirmed 

that the furnace refractory are eroded 

and corroded during the life of the 

furnace both beneath the level of the 

glass, at the glass/metal contact line, 

and, in the case of gas-fired furnaces, 

above the level of the glass. We also 

learned that electric furnaces do not 

have the same temperature profile as 

gas-fired furnaces and, therefore, 

typically do not emit chromium at the 

level of the gas-fired furnaces. 

We also learned that oxyfuel furnaces 

are an important new technology both 

in terms of energy consumption and 

potential to emit SO2 and NOX, but have 

the greatest potential (followed by gasfired furnaces) to emit chromium. We 

have established that furnace age affects 

chromium emissions, as documented in 

‘‘Memorandum Chromium Emissions 

and Furnace Age, August 14, 2014’’ and 

‘‘Explanation of the Mechanisms of 

Chromium Emissions from Gas-Fired 

Furnaces, June 3, 2015’’, which are 

available in the public docket for this 

rulemaking.11 We also disagree with the 

commenter’s statistical analysis and 

argument that the EPA has not 

sufficiently established that there is a 

relationship between furnace age and 

chromium emissions. We have based 

our conclusions on industry comments, 

furnace emissions testing, technical 

literature, and other available data. 

In the letter dated March 12, 2012, the 

commenter stated that ‘‘Fiber glass 

furnaces necessarily use chrome-based 

refractory products (see Appendices A 

and B, spreadsheets showing typical 

chrome content),’’ and that ‘‘Virtually 

all of the above-glass refractory in gasoxy furnaces, unlike other furnace 

classes, is chrome-based refractory.’’ 

In that letter, the commenter 

continued, explaining that ‘‘Since the 

advent of chrome-based refractory, 

insulation manufacturers have been able 

to extend furnace life more than 50 

percent. Without these refractories, 

wool fiberglass manufacturers would 

not likely be competitive in the global 

marketplace. Moreover, there currently 

is no available material that is as good 

as and has the structural integrity of 

chrome-based refractory to handle the 

higher temperature and more corrosive 

atmosphere inside gas-oxy furnaces.’’ 

Regarding the use of chromium 

refractories in oxyfuel furnaces, and the 

continual increase in chromium 

emissions that result, the commenter 

added that oxyfuel furnaces have greater 

chromium emissions than other 

furnaces because, based on industry 

experience, the combination of furnace 

design, glass composition, higher flame 

temperatures, higher water vapor 

concentration, and an oxidizing 

atmosphere with increased 

concentration of oxides (filterable and 

condensable PM) can cause more rapid 

deterioration of the refractory in a gasoxy fiberglass insulation manufacturing 

furnace than in other types of glass 

furnaces. 

Regarding the comparison of 

operating temperatures of oxyfuel to 

other furnaces, the commenter added 

that, ‘‘One advantage of gas-oxy firing is 

the large reduction in NOX, due to the 

reduction of nitrogen from the air in 

combustion, and the reduction in the 

volume of flue gases. One disadvantage 

of gas-oxy firing is that the peak flame 

temperatures are up to 40 percent higher 

than gas-air furnaces. The gas-oxy 

burner flame does not have to heat the 

added air components. In gas-oxy glass 

furnaces, peak flame temperatures 

approach 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, 

whereas air-gas flame temperatures peak 

at about 3,560 degrees Fahrenheit, and 

cold-top electric melters are even lower 

due to having no heat input above the 

glass line.’’ 

Regarding the relationship of furnace 

temperature and glass chemistry to 

chromium emissions, the commenter 

explained that ‘‘with the reduction in 

the flue gas volume, the concentration 

of glass batch ingredient volatiles and 

water vapor in the atmosphere (and flue 

gas) is also much higher. The higher 

temperature of the gas-oxy burners can 

volatize the glass batch components 

more readily than in other furnaces. 

These glass volatiles that contain 

alkaline earth oxides reduce the 

temperature that chrome can be 

vaporized to as low as 1,832 degrees 

Fahrenheit. While the chrome must still 

reach temperatures of 2,700 to 2,900 

degrees Fahrenheit to oxidize the 

chromium from the trivalent to 

hexavalent state, the potentially 

increased volatiles can contribute to 

higher chrome emissions. The 40 

percent higher peak flame temperature 

of oxyfuel burners also raises the 

probability that available chrome (sic) 

will encounter the conditions that will 

convert it to the hexavalent state. 

Combined, these differences generate 

conditions that are more corrosive to 

chrome refractory and can create 

favorable conditions for conversion to 

hex chrome (CR206) inside a gasoxyfueled furnace. These severe 

conditions do not exist in the other fiber 

glass furnace classes.’’ 

Regarding the commenters’ assertion 

that wool fiberglass furnaces could not 

be eroded by the molten fiberglass at the 

rate stated by industry, we note that the 

range of furnace life and rates of erosion 

did not originate from the EPA, but from 

information obtained from the industry 

itself. Further, we note that at the rate 

stated by industry and the control 

efficiency achieved by fabric filters, that 

refractory degrading at a rate of 20,000 

pounds per year and fabric filters 

achieving 99-percent efficiency would 

emit 200 pounds PM annually from the 

contribution of the refractory alone. 

Using industry refractory content of 95- 

percent chromium, 190 of the 200 

pounds of annual PM would be 

chromium compounds; 93 percent (177 

pounds) of that chromium would be in 

the hexavalent state, which is within the 

range measured at oxyfuel and air-gas 

furnaces in this industry. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45302 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Regarding the comment that there is 

no other technology available to meet 

the chromium limit, we note that all 

furnaces at existing area sources and all 

but two furnaces at existing major 

sources currently meet the final 

chromium limit. Regarding these two 

furnaces, the EPA has established that a 

furnace rebuild is an approach that 

existing facilities have used to reduce 

their chromium emissions for furnaces 

over 6 years old, as discussed in section 

III.D of the preamble to the 2014 

supplemental proposal. Further, the rule 

requires sources to meet the emission 

limits, but does not require the use of 

any specific control device or vendor. 

Sources may use whatever means they 

choose to meet the limits, such as more 

frequent furnace rebuilds, using nonchromium or low chromium refractories 

in furnace rebuilds, enhanced baghouse 

operation, improved maintenance and 

alternative controls, and furnace design 

features, changes in raw material, or 

scrubbers. 

Comment: Two commenters asserted 

that the proposed chromium emissions 

limit would require technological 

controls that are not cost effective. 

According to one commenter, the 

installation of these controls would be 

economically damaging to the fiberglass 

insulation industry. 

The commenters cited the agency’s 

estimated cost of $300 per pound of 

hexavalent chromium removed if a 

scrubber is used to comply and the 

agency’s estimated cost of $12,000 per 

pound of chromium compounds 

removed if operations with highchromium refractory are rebricked with 

low-chromium refractory. According to 

the commenters, the conclusion that the 

proposed new chromium limit is 

‘‘feasible and cost effective’’ is 

unreasonable and arbitrary. One 

commenter observed that the EPA’s 

cost-effectiveness values would be 

$600,000 per ton of chromium removed 

for scrubbers and $24 million per ton of 

chromium removed for rebricking, 

assuming either proposed compliance 

solution would actually be successful. 

As such, the commenters stated that the 

agency’s cost-effectiveness analysis does 

not support the conclusion that the new 

chromium limit is authorized and 

justified under CAA section 112(d)(6). 

One commenter claimed that the EPA’s 

conclusion is arbitrary because the costeffectiveness values are far in excess of 

the cost-effectiveness values the EPA 

has found acceptable in prior CAA 

section 112 cost-effectiveness analyses 

and the EPA has not explained why 

such high cost-effectiveness values are 

justified, especially considering risk. 

According to the commenters, 

fiberglass insulation producers provide 

economic benefits by adding 

manufacturing jobs to the U.S. economy, 

shipment of finished product to markets 

throughout the country, and export of 

product to foreign markets. According to 

one commenter, one reason jobs are 

being sent overseas is the existing 

regulatory requirements and concerns 

about the future regulatory climate 

growing even more stringent. If 

revisions are not made to the proposal 

as recommended by the commenter, 

many of the companies will cease 

operation and it is likely that foreign 

competitors will flood the market with 

substandard product. 

Response: We have reviewed the 

available chromium test data and 

information provided in response to our 

2011 proposal, 2013 supplemental 

proposal, and 2014 supplemental 

proposal (76 FR 72770, November 25, 

2011; 78 FR 22370, April 15, 2013; and 

79 FR 68011, November 13, 2014) and 

we have revised our technology review, 

the chromium limit and our economic 

impact analysis for the final rule. 

The EPA is finalizing a chromium 

limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass 

pulled. Based on emissions data 

submitted in 2010 and 2012 by all wool 

fiberglass manufacturers on every 

furnace type, the EPA determined that 

this is a limit reflected by well-designed 

furnaces in this source category. 

As discussed in section VI.B of this 

preamble, all three of the furnaces that 

were tested in 2010, then rebuilt or 

repaired and retested in 2012, showed 

lower chromium emissions as a result of 

the furnace rebuild or repair. Of these 

three furnaces, two emitted chromium 

below the previously proposed limit of 

0.00006 pounds of chromium per ton of 

glass pulled after the rebuild or repair. 

One, a new furnace, tested at about 

0.0002 pounds of chromium per ton of 

glass, and had been rebuilt at a cost of 

about $10 million. Consequently, we 

revised our limit to reflect the level of 

chromium emissions that is achieved by 

a well-designed rebuilt furnace. 

Thus, the final emission limit is a 

level that has been demonstrated by 

recently rebuilt furnaces. We note that 

a key aspect of our changing the final 

chromium limit was to account for this 

new furnace, which measured 

chromium emissions at a level slightly 

higher than the limit we proposed. 

In our November 2014 supplemental 

proposal (79 FR 68012 at 68021), we 

presented a chart showing chromium 

emissions by furnace age. That chart 

indicates 0.00025 pounds per ton 

represents the level below which rebuilt 

furnaces operate and many gas-fired 

furnaces operate below this level 

beyond their tenth year. We are aware 

of new developments in the field of 

chromium refractories that reduce the 

spalling and degradation of the 

refractory face. We consider many of 

these to be design features which a wool 

fiberglass company would consider 

when planning to rebuild a furnace. 

These data demonstrate that welldesigned furnaces (that is, furnaces 

designed and operated to minimize 

chromium emissions) can continue to 

meet the chromium limit as they age. 

This final rule does not limit the 

materials with which a gas-fired furnace 

may be constructed. Specifically, we 

recognize from industry commenters 

that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

used by the wool fiberglass industry 

will continue to use chromium 

refractories in their glass-melting 

furnaces. To help ensure that these 

sources are well-designed to minimize 

chromium emissions, wool fiberglass 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces will be 

required to conduct chromium 

emissions performance testing annually. 

Two facilities are projected to need to 

improve performance. For these two 

facilities, the total capital costs are $21.4 

million and the total annualized 

compliance costs are estimated to be 

$944,000 for furnace rebuilds and 

compliance testing. For all other major 

source facilities subject to the chromium 

limit, the cost of compliance will 

include only the cost of emissions 

testing ($10,000 per furnace for a total 

of $80,000). Based on the EPA’s 

economic impact analysis, which shows 

that the impacts to wool fiberglass 

manufacturers should be low, we 

believe that the compliance costs of the 

final rule are reasonable and will not be 

economically devastating to the wool 

fiberglass insulation industry. 

Regarding the comment requesting 

that the EPA compare the costeffectiveness of the proposed chromium 

limit (i.e., 0.00006 lb/ton of glass) to the 

cost effectiveness of standards finalized 

under other rulemakings, costeffectiveness values for hexavalent 

chromium are generally not comparable 

to values for other less toxic pollutants. 

We note, however, that the values now 

estimated for hexavalent chromium are 

now well within the range that we have 

considered cost effective for other 

highly toxic pollutants (e.g., mercury 

and lead) in past actions. CAA section 

112(d) neither specifies nor mandates a 

cost methodology. We note that in 

Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 

200 D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit 

found the EPA’s chosen methodology 

‘‘reasonable’’ because the statute ‘‘did 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45303 

12http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf. 13http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf. 14http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf. 

not mandate a specific method of cost 

analysis.’’ 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA’s cost analysis for furnace 

rebuilds in support of the 2014 

supplemental proposal (79 FR 68011, 

November 13, 2014) underestimated the 

cost effectiveness by using the wrong 

costing method, incorrectly applying the 

costing method used, using the wrong 

discount rate, and considering costs 

over only the short term. The 

commenter provided the document 

‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Risk and Technology Review (RTR) For 

the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass 

Industries Economic Analysis Report,’’ 

January 2015, as the source of this 

critique of the EPA’s analysis. 

The commenter argued that the Net 

Present Value (NPV) methodology is not 

an appropriate method for calculating 

cost effectiveness of the proposed 

accelerated rebuild schedule if the EPA 

is evaluating the cost of a control as the 

single factor to consider, and also stated 

that they could not identify any EPA 

rules that have used this approach. The 

commenter suggested that a replacement 

cost analysis, as described in section 

2.5.5.6 of the EPA Air Pollution Control 

Cost Manual,12 is more appropriate, and 

more commonly used by the EPA for 

this situation. The commenter provided 

cost-effectiveness results (dollars per 

pound of chromium emission 

reduction), as follows: Using a 

replacement cost methodology, the cost 

effectiveness was estimated by the 

commenter to be in the range of 

$366,161 to $527,334 at major source 

facilities and $67,808 to $97,654 at area 

sources; and using the NPV 

methodology, the cost effectiveness was 

estimated by the commenter to be in the 

range of $398,939 to $403,532 at major 

source facilities and $206,857 to 

$209,239 at area sources (each range 

represents the cost effectiveness 

calculated over 10 years versus 30 

years). 

The commenter further contended 

that the EPA erred in applying the NPV 

methodology in that the EPA excluded 

from its cost analysis the cost of losing 

the residual value (1 to 3 years) of a 

furnace’s life, which contradicts the 

EPA’s NPV methodology. The 

commenter explained that the EPA 

calculated what a $10 million 

investment losing 7 percent a year 

would lose in 7 years versus 10 years, 

and then concluded that the difference 

was the cost difference of the 

investments. The commenter 

contended, however, that both 

calculations are incorrect in how the 

process of NPV is used for comparison: 

With a furnace re-bricking, the $10 

million represents the investment that is 

consumed over the periods of 

comparison; and using the 10 years as 

a base case, the $10 million is consumed 

and has no residual value remaining at 

the end of the 10 year period. The 

commenter concluded that, therefore, 

the $10 million consumed with no 

residual value must be compared to a 

$10 million investment that retains a 

residual value at the end of 7 years, but 

yet must be replaced (i.e., discounting 

the residual value at the end of the 7 

years to present value (‘‘PV’’) and 

adding that to the annual costs). 

The commenter also objected to the 

EPA’s use of a 7-percent discount rate 

because small variations in the discount 

rate can significantly bias the costbenefit analysis. The commenter alleged 

that the EPA chooses radically different 

discount rates for different regulations, 

generally providing no explanation for 

this variation, which appears arbitrary 

and capricious because it often chooses 

relatively high discount rates (between 

7 and 10 percent) for regulations 

imposing future costs and low rates 

(around 3 percent) for regulations 

creating future benefits. 

The commenter further argued that 

the EPA’s cost analysis failed to look at 

the longer-term cost of 7-year rebuilds, 

beyond 10 years into the future. The 

commenter provided the results of an 

analysis that presented the impact over 

30 years, which show higher costs for 

both area and major sources. 

Response: Regarding the comment 

that the EPA used the wrong costing 

method in the 2014 supplemental 

proposal, the EPA has reviewed the 

information provided by the commenter 

and, based on that information, which 

discussed the estimation of costs for 

changes in equipment that may occur as 

a route to comply with NESHAPs, we 

agree that the EPA’s replacement costing 

approach described in section 2.5.5.6 of 

the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost 

Manual 13 is more appropriate for 

estimating the cost of furnace rebuilds 

than the NPV approach used for the 

2014 supplemental proposal. 

We received new information from 

the industry that they believed the 

replacement costing (RC) approach was 

a better fit for the situation and 

approach than the NPV approach, 

which is what we had used at proposal. 

The NPV evaluated the loss to the 

company from having to rebuild a 

furnace earlier, (i.e., at 7 years into the 

furnace campaign instead of at 10 

years.) The RC approach applies the 

equivalent uniform cost method as 

defined in the control cost manual. This 

is different because it calculates a 

uniform, or equal cost across the time of 

the investment, and the NPV is not 

calculated in the same way. While we 

note that use of the NPV is not 

necessarily incorrect in this case, we 

agree that in other similar rules whereby 

this type of approach was introduced 

(that is, replacing a process unit before 

the end of its useful life, or campaign in 

this case), the replacement costing 

approach was applied instead of the 

NPV. Therefore, we agree with the 

commenter and have changed our cost 

estimation method to be consistent. 

We also revised the capital cost 

estimate for rebuilding a furnace to 

include the cost ($700,000) of 

transferring production to another 

facility while the furnace is being 

rebuilt, based on information provided 

by the commenter. Based on the revised 

cost-estimating procedure and capital 

cost ($10.7 million), we estimated the 

total annualized cost for rebuilding a 

furnace to be $462,000. 

Regarding the comment that the EPA 

used the wrong discount rate, the EPA’s 

use of a 7-percent interest rate is in 

accordance with OMB guidance under 

Circular A–4 and Circular A–94. This 

interest rate has been used in the cost 

estimates for all rulemakings issued by 

the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) since Circular A–94 

was issued in 1992 and affirmed by 

Circular A–4 in 2003. This includes the 

2011 proposal for the mineral wool and 

wool fiberglass rules, and both 

supplemental proposals. In addition, the 

EPA Air Pollution Control Cost 

Manual 14, a key cost guidance 

document prepared by the EPA and 

widely used in the Agency as a basis for 

cost estimation that has been available 

in its current edition since 2003, 

discusses the use of the 7-percent 

interest rate for rulemakings at length. 

The adherence by OAQPS to OMB 

guidance with regards to annualizing 

capital costs in its rulemaking has been 

consistent, and the information 

provided by the commenter on interest 

rates is not germane to the analysis for 

this rulemaking. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the EPA’s proposed chromium limit in 

the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 

68011, November 13, 2014) was not cost 

effective because the EPA’s cost analysis 

was missing the following costs 

associated with furnace rebuilds: New 

materials (refractory bricks); recycling 

and disposal of old material; installation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45304 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

labor; maintenance; loss of production; 

and loss of labor force. The commenter 

retained a consultant to conduct a cost 

analysis of a furnace rebuild, and the 

analysis is provided by the commenter. 

The analysis concluded that the total 

investment of a furnace refractory 

rebuild is estimated to be about $28 

million, assuming the EPA’s furnace 

rebuild cost of $10 million. The $28 

million includes approximately $7.9 

million for all materials, $2 million for 

installation labor, $60,000 for brick 

recycling/disposal, $8 million for 

additional maintenance, $9 million for 

loss of production, and $384,000 for loss 

of labor force. The commenter explained 

that the loss of production cost is based 

on 200 tons per day throughput, $0.65 

per pound of reproduction, and 35-day 

shutdown period. These costs are listed 

in Table 2 of Appendix 2 of Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–1042–0348. The 

commenter explained that the 

additional maintenance cost includes 

maintenance of control equipment 

performed while the furnace is shut 

down during rebuild, as follows: 

Maintaining safe and proper operation at a 

wool fiberglass manufacturing facility 

requires that the facility maintain melted 

glass within the furnace at all times. In 

addition to the furnace operating 

continuously, all other equipment used in 

the manufacturing process, including air 

pollution control equipment operates 

continuously during normal operation. 

During a scheduled rebuild of the furnace 

refractory, a facility will use that downtime 

to perform routine maintenance on the entire 

manufacturing line. This maintenance 

requires longer downtimes to accomplish 

because it includes the support equipment 

for the furnaces as well as the major down 

line equipment such as forming sections, 

curing ovens, and line drives. This 

maintenance is done at this time to avoid the 

other operational expenses and product 

supply issues incurred when taking extended 

downtimes. Therefore, when a facility plans 

a refractory rebuild, it must consider the 

additional costs and logistics associated with 

the routine repair and general maintenance of 

the entire manufacturing line. NAIMA [North 

American Insulation Manufacturers 

Association] members estimate these 

additional costs to be in the range of 

$6,000,000 to $10,000,000, and include 

material (wear part replacements, pollution 

control device maintenance, electrical 

preventative maintenance, etc.) and labor to 

perform this maintenance. (Appendix 2 of 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–1042–0348). 

Response: As noted in the information 

provided by the commenter (see 

Appendix 2 of Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1042–0348), the EPA’s 

capital cost estimate of $10 million 

includes material costs, installation 

labor, and brick recycling/disposal 

costs. We also revised the capital cost 

estimate for rebuilding a furnace to 

include the cost ($700,000) of 

transferring production to another 

facility while the furnace is being 

rebuilt, based on information provided 

by the commenter. We disagree that the 

cost of additional maintenance for 

control devices performed while the 

furnace is being rebuilt should be 

included in the total capital cost 

estimate because these costs are not 

directly related to rebuilding the furnace 

(i.e., the furnace could be rebuilt 

without performing maintenance on 

control equipment). We also disagree 

with the commenter that the cost of lost 

labor force suggested by the comment 

should be included because we believe 

that workers would be reassigned to 

other duties at the facility (including 

activities related to rebuilding the 

furnace) while the furnace is shut down. 

Comment: One commenter indicated 

that facilities will need to install control 

equipment to achieve the proposed 

chromium standard and that the EPA 

has grossly underestimated the cost of 

this equipment for major sources. One 

commenter provided cost-effectiveness 

estimates (in dollars per pound of 

chromium emission reduction) 

developed by Trinity Consultants for 

various technologies: HEPA filter would 

be $18,500 to $24,100; Venturi scrubber 

would be $29,700 to $41,700; 3-stage 

filter after DESP would be $49,100 to 

$63,900. 

Response: The EPA amended the 

proposed chromium limit for major 

sources to be 0.00025 pounds chromium 

per ton of glass pulled. Based on 

emission data submitted to the EPA in 

2010 and 2012 by all major source wool 

fiberglass manufacturers for every 

furnace type, the EPA determined that 

all but two major source furnaces 

currently meet this chromium limit. For 

those two sources that will not initially 

meet the finalized chromium limit, the 

EPA determined that a furnace rebuild 

may be conducted to achieve the limit 

with no additional control technologies 

(e.g., scrubber). 

Note that the finalized chromium 

limit applies to gas-fired furnaces and 

does not apply to electric furnaces. 

Electric furnaces at major sources will 

not be subject to the final chromium 

emission limits, so wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities operating 

electric furnaces will not incur any 

additional costs for compliance with the 

finalized chromium limits. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that the EPA should subcategorize 

sources by furnace type because the 

chromium emissions test data indicate 

significant differences among wool 

fiberglass furnaces and furnace type. 

The commenter further asserted that 

non-oxyfuel furnaces should not have a 

chromium limit, and that oxyfuel 

furnaces should be further 

subcategorized to limit any applicable 

chromium emission limits to only those 

furnaces that warrant such limits. A 

second commenter asserted that the 

EPA should not subcategorize by 

furnace type. 

One commenter suggested the 

following list of subcategories: Oxyfuel, 

specialty, steel shell, air-gas, cold-top 

electric. The commenter characterized 

the EPA’s authority to subcategorize as 

broad and discretionary, noting that the 

CAA authorizes the EPA to ‘‘distinguish 

among classes, types, and sizes of 

sources within a category’’ in 

establishing MACT standards, and that 

the EPA retains discretion in important 

respects in setting floors for MACT 

standards within the statutory 

framework in order to promulgate 

MACT standards that best serve the 

public interest. The commenter 

continued, ‘‘Congress authorized EPA to 

subcategorize source categories based on 

classes, types and sizes of sources 

which will result in different [f]loors for 

different subcategories.’’ The 

commenter observed that the EPA’s 

criteria for subcategorization include 

‘‘air pollution control differences, 

process operation . . ., emissions 

characteristics, control device 

applicability and costs, safety, and 

opportunities for pollution prevention.’’ 

The commenter also noted that the EPA 

had incorrectly stated ‘‘[f]urnace 

construction and refractory composition 

were not factors that were presented by 

industry as having an effect on HAP 

emissions, and those factors were not 

used as a basis of representativeness for 

the resulting data set,’’ which 

contradicted the May 5, 2010 testing 

proposal letter sent to the EPA that 

categorized furnaces by construction 

and identified furnaces as having an 

effect on emissions. The commenter 

stated that this identification by furnace 

type in the May 5, 2010 letter is 

precisely what the EPA should consider 

when subcategorizing. 

The commenter asserted that no 

subcategories except oxyfuel furnaces 

should have a chromium limit, noting 

that non-oxyfuel furnaces (steel shell, 

cold-top electric, air-gas, and specialty) 

have extremely low to non-detectable 

chromium emissions and referred to 

three supporting references: A summary 

of the chromium content of refractories 

and chromium emissions (attachment 8 

of comment letter), the test reports sent 

to the EPA as a basis for the comment, 

and a technology review of glass 

furnaces (attachment 10 of the comment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45305 

15 Denis A. Brosnan, Ph.D., PE, ‘‘Technology 

Review, Chromium Emissions in Wool Fiberglass 

Melting Furnaces,’’ December 10, 2011. 

letter).15 The commenter stated that the 

technology review (attachment 10) 

concluded that oxyfuel combustion has 

a much higher potential for generating 

hexavalent chromium emissions as 

compared to air-gas or other types of 

furnaces based on the following 

conclusions: (1) Chromium emissions 

result from volatilization from the 

surface of chromium alumina 

refractories used at or above the glass 

line in the melting furnaces, and (2) the 

most significant variable with respect to 

quantity of chromium volatilized and to 

the presence of hexavalent chromium is 

the flame temperature. The commenter 

cited the study’s recommendations 

regarding subcategorization: ‘‘Because of 

the very significant flame temperature 

differences between oxyfuel and air-gas 

furnaces (5,035 degrees Fahrenheit 

versus 3,562 degrees Fahrenheit, 

respectively), there is engineering 

rationale to differentiate or 

subcategorize the furnaces by 

combustion type from a standpoint of 

emissions . . . Other furnaces, such as 

cold-top melters and steel shell melters, 

should be in any lower emissions 

subcategory’’ (attachment 10, p. 10). 

The commenter further asserted that 

the EPA should go a step further and 

subcategorize oxyfuel furnaces to 

regulate only those furnaces that pose a 

concern. The commenter stated that the 

other oxyfuel furnaces other than the 

CertainTeed Kansas City, Kansas facility 

(a total of 12 furnaces) do not pose a 

concern because they show low 

chromium emissions and do not 

approach a level of emissions that 

would trigger MACT applicability. The 

commenter recommended the following 

possible approaches for subcategorizing 

oxyfuel furnaces: (1) Establish a 

subcategory of the oxyfuel furnaces 

based on variation in demonstrated 

chromium emissions; and (2) establish a 

subcategory of the oxyfuel furnaces 

based on sources that can demonstrate 

a less than 1-in-1 million risk (using a 

risk-based source threshold limit of 25 

pounds per year). 

Another commenter urged the EPA 

not to subcategorize the glass-melting 

furnaces used in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category. The 

commenter supported the EPA’s 

recognition at proposal that it was 

inappropriate to subcategorize in the 

wool fiberglass source category, given 

that there are no relevant differences 

that distinguish among classes, types, 

and sizes of sources within the category. 

The commenter argued that use of 

different types of furnace bricks does 

not qualify as a basis for 

subcategorization because sources of the 

same class, type, and size use different 

bricks. According to the commenter, the 

EPA may not subcategorize the source 

category into high chromium-emitters 

and low chromium-emitters because 

that would violate the purpose of 

protecting public health and the 

purpose of ensuring that the bestperformers drive CAA section 112(d) 

standards to become stronger. The 

commenter observed that bestperformers may have lower emissions, 

in part, because of the materials they 

use in their process or in their 

equipment. The commenter emphasized 

that the EPA may not lawfully 

subcategorize in a way that would place 

the best and worst performers into their 

own separate subcategories. The 

commenter asserted that the EPA should 

ensure that it sets standards for the 

entire source category that meet CAA 

section 112 requirements, rather than 

subcategorizing in a way that may allow 

a source to evade stronger emission 

requirements. 

Response: In today’s final rule, we are 

promulgating a PM limit under CAA 

section 112(d)(6) that is applicable to all 

glass melting furnaces in the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing major source 

category. In our November 2011 

proposal, we explained that in 

conducting our technology review, we 

found that most sources had reported 

PM emissions that were less than 10 

percent of the current limit with several 

sources achieving PM emissions that 

were two to three orders of magnitude 

lower than the current MACT limit. We 

reasoned that new furnace designs and 

improvements in control devices 

operations, design, and bags since 

promulgation of the 1999 MACT were 

most likely responsible for reductions in 

PM emissions. As previously explained, 

the EPA may use surrogates to regulate 

HAP if there is reasonable basis to do so. 

In several rulemakings, we have used 

PM as a surrogate ‘‘for HAP metals 

because PM control technology traps 

HAP metal particles and other 

particulates indiscriminately.’’ National 

Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d at 

639. We continue to believe that PM 

controls would be effective for 

chromium emissions commensurate 

with the levels from both steel and 

electric furnaces used by wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities. 

In today’s rule, we are also 

promulgating a chromium compounds 

limit under CAA section 112(d)(6) that 

will apply to gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces. As explained in the April 2013 

supplemental proposal, electric furnaces 

emit metal HAP including chromium at 

generally lower emission levels than 

gas-fired furnaces. For example, because 

they operate at higher temperatures, gasfired furnaces are constructed with 

chromium refractories at various parts 

of the furnace that are above the molten 

glass, including the crown. 

Temperatures above the melt in gasfired furnaces range from 2500 to 4500 

degrees Fahrenheit, and these 

temperatures are sufficient to convert 

chromium to its hexavalent state. When 

chromium is available, as it is in the 

refractories above the melt in gas-fired 

furnaces, it may be converted to the 

hexavalent state by the heat of the gasfired furnace. Thus, gas-fired furnaces 

have the potential to emit elevated 

levels of chromium, even when meeting 

the total PM limit (78 FR 22379–82; 78 

FR 22386). These higher chromium 

emissions do not occur with electric 

furnaces because they are constructed 

with either non-chromium refractories 

(cold-top electric) or steel in place of 

refractories (electric steel shell) above 

the glass/metal line. As also explained 

in our 2013 supplemental proposal, 

available test data from both electric and 

steel shell glass-melting furnaces 

consistently showed chromium 

emissions below the detection level of 

the emissions measurement method (78 

FR 22379–80). Furnace construction and 

source test data also show that electric 

furnaces are not constructed using highchromium refractories above the glassmetal line, do not reach the 

temperatures necessary to transform 

chromium to the hexavalent state, and 

do not emit significant amounts of 

chromium compounds, as do the gasfired furnaces. In fact, all test data for 

electric furnaces show that chromium 

emissions were below the detection 

limit or were at least one order of 

magnitude below the proposed limit. 

Based on test data and statements from 

industry, we confirmed that gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces are constructed 

using similar high-chromium 

refractories as one high emitting glassmelting furnace, that chromium 

emissions increase with furnace age as 

the refractories age, and that the type of 

furnace at the high emitter is an 

emerging new technology that is 

preferred across the industry where a 

source of industrial oxygen is 

economically available. 

Additionally, as also explained in 

today’s final rule, we are finalizing a 

chromium compounds limit, under the 

ample margin of safety step of CAA 

section 112(f)(2), that will also apply to 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. As 

explained above, gas-fired (oxyfuel and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45306 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

16Technology Review. Chromium Emissions from 

Wool Fiberglass Melting Furnaces. Brosnan, Denis 

A. Ph.D., PE. Clemson University, Clemson, SC 

February 1, 2012. 

17Chromium volatilization is only reported in the 

non-equilibrium melting of glasses at plasma 

processing temperatures, i.e., with flame 

temperatures typically reported as above 7,000 

degrees Celsius (>12,000 degrees Fahrenheit). 

Brosnan, 2012. 

18C. Nelson, Transition Metal Ions in Glasses: 

Nework Modifiers or Quasi-Molecular Complexes, 

Mat. Res. Bull. 18 (1983) 959–966. 

19W. David Kingery, H. Bowen, and D. Uhlmann, 

Introduction to Ceramics (2nd Edition), Wiley 

(1976). 

20This report was attached to a comment to the 

November 25, 2011, Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

proposed RTR rule, and offers the author’s view on 

the technology review for wool fiberglass furnaces. 

We conclude his use of the term ‘mineral wool’ in 

this context may have been either an error (the 

author advises on both industries) or an inclusion 

of wool fiberglass as a sub-classification under the 

overall classification (see NAICS codes) of mineral 

wool. 

air-gas) furnaces have the greatest 

potential to emit chromium compounds 

because they have the internal 

temperature, the availability of oxygen, 

reactivity, and corrosivity of the furnace 

environment that are typical of wool 

fiberglass furnaces. In the 2013 

supplemental proposal, we explained 

that the elevated chromium emissions 

from gas-fired furnaces are of concern 

due to the toxic nature of the type of 

chromium emitted—hexavalent 

chromium—and the effects associated 

with its inhalation. For example, 

hexavalent chromium is classified as a 

Class A known human carcinogen (78 

FR 22374). In the November 2011 

proposal, we also explained that an 

auxiliary risk characterization analysis, 

to assess the potential maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risks in the 

event that all wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities emitted at the 

level of the highest hexavalent 

chromium emitter, indicated that if 

other facilities were to emit at that 

reasonable highest measured level, 

emissions of hexavalent chromium 

could potentially pose unacceptable 

risks to public health due to inhalation 

exposures resulting from stack 

emissions of hexavalent chromium (76 

FR 72801–80). We provided a detailed 

explanation on our decision to set both 

PM and total chromium standards in the 

memorandum titled ‘‘Technical Basis 

for Separate Chromium Emission Limits 

for Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting 

Furnaces’’, which is in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

Comment: Two commenters predicted 

that the environmentally beneficial use 

of recycled mixed and green glass 

(cullet), and the businesses that provide 

it, will be adversely impacted by the 

chromium limit. The commenters 

pointed out that in 2008–2011, member 

companies used more than 5.4 billion 

pounds of recycled glass, and that they 

are the largest user of mixed glass and 

the only large user of green glass. These 

commenters surmise that some 

chromium may be emitted from cullet 

when it is remelted in the furnace, and 

that companies may reduce their use of 

green cullet to meet the chromium 

emission limits, an outcome that the 

commenters see as undesirable. The 

commenters added that the highest 

chromium emissions were measured 

from the furnace that also fed the most 

green glass cullet as a fraction of total 

raw materials into the furnace during 

the test period. One commenter noted 

that ‘‘not all chrome was retained in the 

glass (cullet),’’ and that green glass 

cullet ‘‘can be a primary contributor of 

chrome emissions.’’ 

Response: As discussed in an 

attachment to comments submitted on 

the EPA’s 2011 proposal, the wool 

fiberglass ‘‘recipe’’ uses alkali or 

alkaline earth oxides, or boron oxide 

(borax) for its properties to terminate 

chains and sheets of silicon and oxygen 

tetrahedral in the glass melt.16 The 

result of this process is the formation of 

macromolecules. These macromolecules 

are kinetically unable to crystallize at 

low temperature and, as a result, 

essentially polymerize the glass. 

The comment attachment further 

explains that chromium enters the glass 

in wool fiberglass furnaces below the 

glass line, and goes into solution 

without having the potential for 

volatilization at glass-melting 

temperatures.17 Chromium enters the 

silicate network structure of the glass as 

a ‘‘modifier’’ of the network, and cannot 

form glass on its own due to 

thermodynamic constraints. Chromium 

is held ‘‘rigidly’’ in the silicate structure 

in interstices in the atomic network, and 

is present in coordinated complexes 

with oxygen.18

Further, based upon comments from 

industry, technical literature, refractory 

product specifications, and other data, 

we conclude that the chromium is not 

released from the cullet when it is 

melted, but from the chromium 

refractories due to several influencing 

factors: The glass chemistry, furnace 

temperatures, refractory wear rate and 

glass pull rate. For more information 

regarding this topic, see memo titled 

‘‘Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions 

From Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting 

Furnaces, June 2015’’ in the docket to 

this rule. 

However, we agree that the chemistry 

of the internal furnace environment may 

be influenced when green glass cullet 

comprises most or nearly all of the raw 

material mixture used in the furnace. 

This may be due to reaction of 

submetallic oxides (boron) with the 

chromium oxide of the refractory. As 

described in the comment attachment, 

‘‘the basics of glass melting are wellknown, with fluxes acting on silicon 

dioxide or SiO2 to achieve a melted state 

that forms an amorphous ‘‘network’’ of 

atoms of oxygen and silicon with 

‘‘fluxing’’ metals resulting in rigid solids 

at room temperature.’’ 19 The attachment 

concludes that, ‘‘Below the glass line in 

mineral wool 20 (sic) furnaces, 

chromium from refractory corrosion 

enters the network structure of the 

molten glass where it is held to the 

extent that it is not volatile at the flame 

temperatures of batch temperature 

within these furnaces. Therefore, 

volatilization from chromium 

refractories within mineral fiberglass 

furnaces originates at or above the glass 

line in the furnaces from the exposed 

refractory surfaces.’’ 

To summarize, according to the 

commenter, the minerals used to color 

these glasses is not re-emitted from the 

cullet when it is melted at the 

temperatures of wool fiberglass 

furnaces. According to the commenter, 

studies show that in order to volatilize 

chromium from glass, temperatures 

above 7,000 degrees Celsius (12,000 

degrees Fahrenheit) (such as occurs at 

plasma processing temperatures) are 

required (Brosnan, 2012). 

Therefore, we disagree with the 

commenter’s assertion of the 

mechanism of chromium emissions 

from the furnace, i.e., that chromium is 

volatilized from green glass cullet when 

it is remelted in the wool fiberglass 

furnace. 

To the contrary, we maintain that 

chromium emissions are due to 

chromium refractory products in wool 

fiberglass furnaces. According to the 

literature and references, many of which 

were provided by the commenter, 

chromium emissions increase from the 

wool fiberglass furnace as a result of 

degradation of chromium refractories, 

which is influenced by the 

thermochemical interactions within the 

furnace environment. The rate of 

degradation of the chromium refractory 

in the wool fiberglass furnace is 

influenced by the thermochemical 

interactions which are influenced by the 

raw material mixture processed in the 

furnace and the use of cullet (of any 

color). 

We note that the test results upon 

which the final limits are based include 

tests conducted while the furnace was 

processing cullet in the raw material 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45307 

mixture. While the technology basis for 

the final standard is more frequent 

furnace rebuilds, wool fiberglass furnace 

operators may choose among a variety of 

options, as explained in section III.D of 

the 2014 preamble. Commenters 

previously identified several options to 

meet the final standard, including raw 

material substitution, i.e., reducing the 

amount of cullet processed in the 

furnace. In addition to raw material 

substitution, industry commenters 

included the furnace rebuild and 

installation of a control technology at 

the outlet of the DESP as potential 

chromium reduction measures. 

Regarding the prediction of the 

commenters that negative 

environmental impacts will result from 

the chromium limits because green glass 

will be landfilled instead of remelted by 

the wool fiberglass industry, we 

disagree for the following reasons. First, 

glass recycling in the past was 

accomplished through the color 

segregation of glass materials: Brown, or 

amber glass for amber containers; clear, 

or ‘‘flint’’ for flint containers; and green 

glass for green containers. Recycling 

centers no longer segregate their glass by 

color, but instead separate recyclable 

materials according to type: Paper, 

aluminum, steel, and glass, where glass 

of all colors is combined together in a 

single stream. Therefore, we disagree 

with the commenter that vast amounts 

of green glass would be landfilled 

because glass recycling no longer 

segregates waste glass by color. 

Second, we acknowledge that while 

mixed glass from single stream recycling 

may be difficult to sell as a raw material, 

recyclers now decolorize used glass for 

resale into all glass markets (container 

glass in particular). One recycler (GMG) 

in particular shared a description of 

their process: ‘‘GMG’s basic technology 

provides for the de-colorization and 

subsequent recolorization of mixed 

color cullet in the production of glass 

containers. In so doing, it allows the 

glass manufacturer to use multiple 

colored cullet (amber, green, flint) to 

produce a single color glass, matching 

rigorous color and transmissivity 

standards required for many glass 

products. It accomplishes this in a 

manner that allows the glass 

manufacturer to replace virgin raw 

materials with a former waste product 

(mixed cullet). GMG’s Batch 

Formulation System (BFS) is a userfriendly software program based upon a 

GMG proprietary series of algorithms 

representing the full spectrum of 

furnace batch materials and their 

chemistry. The BFS technology, 

combined with the optical scanning 

equipment, enables the manufacturer to 

further increase savings through the use 

of start-of-the-art optical scanner/feeder 

with advanced software that 

instantaneously reports color 

distribution weights and cullet 

chemistry in each batch sent to the 

furnace. Using these real time reports on 

the incoming cullet stream, the furnace 

operator can make formula 

modifications in chemicals and virgin 

materials to ensure uniform colored 

glass production.’’ 

Third, the wool fiberglass industry is 

one of several glass industries, 

including mineral wool, container glass, 

pressed and blown glass, and flat glass, 

that purchase glass cullet as an 

inexpensive and energy efficient raw 

material. Therefore, we disagree that 

glass cullet would necessarily be 

landfilled instead of used in one of any 

number of glass industries. 

Fourth, because chromium does not 

readily leach out of vitrified materials 

such as glasses, and would not further 

pollute the environment if disposed in 

a landfill, we believe that even if green 

glass cullet were landfilled in some 

areas, that would not result in a worse 

environmental impact than for 

chromium (particularly in its hexavalent 

form, as is most of the chromium from 

wool fiberglass) to be released into the 

air upon remelting. 

Finally, according to the commenter, 

the use of cullet is required by 

Executive Order, and wool fiberglass 

companies avail themselves of cullet as 

a low-cost, energy efficient raw material 

which is also used to increase wool 

fiberglass production rates due to the 

lower melting temperature and eutectic 

point (as compared to all raw minerals). 

Wool fiberglass manufacturers have 

stated that they would need to greatly 

reduce or eliminate their use of cullet in 

the oxyfuel furnaces in order to meet the 

proposed chromium limit (0.00006 lb/

ton of glass pulled), but that it is a moot 

point at the final chromium limit 

(0.00025 lb/ton of glass pulled). During 

meetings held in December 2014 and 

March 2015, industry stated that 

reducing or eliminating the use of cullet 

in the oxyfuel furnaces as a way to meet 

the chromium emission limit was no 

longer a concern to them. Furthermore, 

use of cullet in electric furnaces (which 

are not impacted by the chromium 

limit) does not seem to increase 

emissions of chromium as it does in gasfired furnaces. Therefore, this is not an 

issue for electric furnaces, which will 

continue to use cullet. Therefore, we 

disagree with the commenter that cullet 

providers will be adversely affected by 

these final rules. 

For the reasons stated above, we 

disagree with the commenter that there 

are environmental impacts associated 

with glass recycling that should be 

included in the impacts analysis. 

However, changing the content and 

mixture of raw materials used in a 

process can be a viable option for 

regulated sources to meet emissions 

limits. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the technology review? 

In our technology review under CAA 

section 112(d)(6), for PM we found that 

while the use of ESPs is not new to this 

industry, the use of the DESPs in 

combination with gas-fired furnaces is 

more prevalent. We found that, in 

general, baghouses are no longer used 

for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We 

also found that all glass-melting 

furnaces were achieving emissions 

reductions that were well below the 

existing MACT standards regardless of 

the control technology in use. 

Therefore, we determined that 

emissions controls on furnaces are 

capable of reducing PM to levels below 

those in the MACT standard, and, as 

previously proposed in our April 2013 

supplemental proposal, we are 

finalizing under CAA section 112(d)(6) 

the PM limit for new and existing glassmelting furnaces. 

Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA provides 

that the agency must review and revise 

‘‘as necessary’’ existing MACT 

standards taking into consideration 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies by affected 

sources. The ‘‘as necessary’’ language 

must be read in the context of the 

provision, which focuses on the review 

of developments that have occurred in 

the industry since the time of the 

original promulgation of the MACT 

standard. Thus, our technology review 

was for all glass-melting furnaces 

located at both area and major sources, 

since all area sources were originally 

major sources. As explained in our 

April 2013 supplemental proposal, the 

number of area sources is continually 

increasing as a result of the definition of 

‘‘wool fiberglass facility’’ in 40 CFR 63, 

subpart NNN. For example in 2002, two 

out of 33 facilities were area sources, 

but by December 2012, 20 facilities were 

area sources (78 FR 22377). As also 

previously explained, there are no 

differences between gas-fired glassmelting furnaces used at major and area 

sources (78 FR 22377). Therefore, we 

believe it was appropriate to consider 

all furnaces in our technology review 

under CAA section 112(d)(6). 

Based on public comments and test 

data, we found that the DESP achieves 

an average of 97.5-percent efficiency in 

reducing PM, a fraction of which is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45308 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

chromium compounds. Test data 

indicate that the majority of this 

chromium is in the hexavalent state, 

which is the most toxic form of this 

pollutant. We concluded that, as earlier 

discussed, the mechanism of formation, 

the increasing rate of emission release 

(due to refractory degradation), and the 

pollutant toxicity warrant additional 

investigation. Our technology review 

indicates that options effective in 

reducing the chromium compound 

emissions from the furnaces are 

available to wool fiberglass companies. 

We, therefore, conclude that it is 

appropriate for us to set standards for 

the fraction of chromium in the total PM 

that is still emitted from the DESP. 

Based on comments we received on 

the November 2014 supplemental 

proposal, we again reviewed the cost 

and control options and found using 

new cost information that the limit as 

proposed was not as cost effective as we 

initially believed. We reviewed the data 

to determine whether a higher limit 

than previously proposed would be 

more cost effective while still 

significantly reducing chromium 

emissions from wool fiberglass gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces. We found that 

most wool fiberglass gas-fired glassmelting furnaces and all recently rebuilt 

gas-fired furnaces currently emit 

chromium compounds at rates below 

0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of 

glass pulled. Two furnaces located at 

major sources, which together emit 583 

pounds of chromium compounds per 

year after DESP control, would still have 

to reduce chromium emissions to meet 

the limit. 

We compared the chromium emission 

reductions that would have resulted 

under the previously proposed emission 

limit of 0.00006 pounds chromium per 

ton of glass pulled to the reductions that 

result from the final limit of 0.00025 

pounds chromium per ton of glass 

pulled. We found that the proposed 

limit would have reduced chromium 

from major sources by 567 pounds per 

year, and that the final limit reduces 

chromium by 524 pounds per year. 

These are comparable and substantial 

reductions in chromium due to two 

high-emitting furnaces at major sources. 

Moreover, the final limit sets a backstop 

so that another high-chromiumemitting, gas-fired glass-melting furnace 

cannot be operated again at a major 

source in this industry. 

We revised our technology review to 

reflect our conclusions on the most costeffective ways to meet the final 

chromium limit. We find that two 

approaches are likely to be used by 

industry to reduce chromium emissions 

from gas-fired furnaces. One approach is 

to rebuild the furnace early (instead of 

a furnace life of 10 or more years, 

rebuild the furnace after 7 years of 

service) at an annualized cost of 

$462,000 per year, and the other 

approach is to replace one raw material 

(cullet) with another material (raw 

minerals), which the industry stated 

would result in lower chromium 

emissions, at an average cost of about 

$620,000 per year. Industry test data 

show that major sources will reduce 

chromium emission by 524 pounds per 

year to meet the 0.00025 pounds 

chromium per ton of glass pulled limit. 

The cost effectiveness of both 

approaches is reasonable, and the 

option to rebuild the furnace has a cost 

effectiveness of approximately $880 per 

pound of chromium, which appears for 

most companies to be the most costeffective option. This cost is extremely 

affordably compared to costs for 

chromium control in other rules. For 

example, in the Chromium 

Electroplating RTR (77 FR 58226, 

September 19, 2012), we accepted a cost 

effectiveness of $11,000 per pound of 

hexavalent chromium reduced. We also 

note that section 112(d) neither specifies 

nor mandates a cost methodology. We 

note that in Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 

F.3d 195, 200 D.C. Cir. 2001), the DC 

Circuit Court found the EPA’s chosen 

methodology ‘‘reasonable’’ because the 

statute ‘‘did not mandate a specific 

method of cost analysis.’’ 

Sources may choose a combination of 

these approaches to meet the final 

chromium limit: Raw material 

substitution may be used as the furnace 

begins to show refractory wear (and 

associated increase in chromium 

emissions), and then, toward the end of 

the useful life of the furnace, sources 

may choose to rebuild their process 

equipment. We discuss the technology 

review in more detail in the November 

2011 (76 FR 72803–72804) and the April 

2013 (78 FR 22379–382) proposals; in 

the ‘‘Technology Review Memorandum 

for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP’’; and in the paper titled, 

‘‘Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions 

From Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting 

Furnaces,’’ June 2015; which are 

available in the docket to this rule. 

C. MACT Standards for Pollutants 

Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate 

and Previously Unregulated Pollutants 

for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

Source Category (Major Sources) 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category (major sources)? 

In the November 2011 proposal, we 

proposed to establish emissions limits 

for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol 

from FA and RS manufacturing lines 

that were previously regulated under a 

surrogate, and previously unregulated 

HCl and HF from glass-melting furnaces. 

In the April 2013 supplemental 

proposal, we retained the proposed 

emission limits for formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol for FA and RS 

manufacturing lines; however, we 

proposed work practice standards under 

CAA section 112(h) for control of HF 

and HCl emissions from furnaces, 

instead of the numeric emission limits 

in the November 2011 proposal (see 

section V.D of this preamble). In the 

November 2014 supplemental proposal, 

we proposed revised emissions limits 

for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol 

from RS and FA lines for new sources 

as a result of our updated approach to 

evaluate limited datasets. The emission 

limits for existing RS and FA lines in 

the November 2014 supplemental 

proposal remained the same as in the 

April 2013 supplemental proposal 

because the size of these datasets was 

sufficiently large that the limits were 

not changed by the updated approach. 

For the sake of simplicity, we discuss 

these pollutants together in the 

following sections. 

2. How did the formaldehyde, methanol, 

and phenol emission limits change for 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category? 

We have not changed any aspect of 

the emission limits for formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol for existing and 

new FA manufacturing lines since the 

November 2014 supplemental proposal. 

However, as explained in section V.H of 

this preamble, we are deferring 

evaluation of emissions limits for RS 

lines pending collection of new process 

and emissions data from the industry. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the formaldehyde, methanol, and 

phenol emission limits, and what are 

our responses? 

We received comments in support of 

and against our proposed formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol emission limits 

for FA lines. The following is a 

summary of the key comments received 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45309 

regarding the revised formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol emission limits 

for FA lines in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category and our 

responses to these comments. 

Additional comments on the standards 

and our responses can be found in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the EPA is changing the 

applicability of the MACT standard for 

products made on FA manufacturing 

lines, as the 2013 supplemental 

proposal (78 FR 22370, April 15, 2013) 

indicated that the limits apply to all 

products manufactured on an FA line, 

not only to pipe and heavy density 

products. The commenter interpreted 

this to expand applicability of MACT to 

lines not previously regulated, which is 

beyond the EPA’s authority under 

section 112 of the CAA. In the 

commenter’s opinion, the limits for FA 

lines should continue to apply only to 

pipe and heavy density products, and 

not to any other product made on an FA 

line. 

Response: The EPA changed the 

applicability of the MACT standard for 

products made on FA manufacturing 

lines for two reasons. First, the EPA 

determined under this rulemaking that 

the EPA established the 1999 MACT 

floor as no control (i.e., no limit was 

established) for formaldehyde emissions 

from FA lines producing light density 

products (new and existing), automotive 

products (new and existing), and heavy 

density products (existing). As stated in 

the March 31, 1997, proposal for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP (61 FR 15230), we divided FA 

lines into four subcategories: light 

density, automotive, heavy density, and 

pipe products. In that proposal (61 FR 

15239), we noted that we did not 

establish emission limits for existing FA 

manufacturing lines producing lightdensity, automotive or heavy-density 

products or emission limits for new FA 

manufacturing lines producing lightdensity or automotive products because 

the MACT floor was no control and 

because the cost effectiveness of 

additional controls beyond the floor was 

not reasonable. The DC Circuit Court 

explicitly rejected this approach— 

establishing the MACT floor as no 

control—in both National Lime 

Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 633– 

34 and in Portland Cement Association 

v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 

2011). Therefore, the EPA has both the 

authority and the obligation to change 

applicability for FA lines to ensure that 

all sources of HAP are regulated. 

Furthermore, we believe that the data 

for these facilities clearly support the 

establishment of MACT floors that 

assure emissions controls. The 

standards are based on data we received 

on tested FA lines. The commenter did 

not provide additional test data or 

information on ‘‘any other product 

made on an FA line’’ that would lead us 

to change to the emission limits 

previously proposed for FA lines. 

Second, in our April 2013 

supplemental proposal, in response to 

comments on our November 2011 

proposal, and consistent with our intent 

in the 2011 proposal, we stated that we 

were eliminating the subcategories for 

FA bonded lines because we believe 

that the technical or design differences 

that distinguished these subcategories in 

1999 no longer exist (78 FR 22387). We 

stated in the 2013 preamble that, as part 

of rule development, industry provided 

test data that they claimed were 

representative of products manufactured 

on FA lines (refer to industry’s May 10, 

2010, letter to the EPA, available in the 

docket). The 2011 and 2012 ICR 

response data indicate that only one 

company uses FA processes to 

manufacture wool fiberglass products. 

This is the company that provided the 

test data on which the limits for FA 

lines are based. In comments, 

companies asked that the limits for FA 

lines apply only to pipe and heavy 

density, and not to ‘‘any other product 

made on an FA line.’’ However, no other 

companies provided additional data that 

could serve as a basis for a change to the 

proposed limits for FA lines for any 

other products being produced on FA 

lines. The data provided by industry, 

therefore, indicate that this one 

company is the only company engaged 

in manufacturing wool fiberglass 

products on an FA line. Because test 

data exist for multiple products from 

this one company reporting these 

activities, we disagree with the 

commenter that the limits for FA lines 

should continue to apply only to pipe 

and heavy density products, and we are 

finalizing limits developed for FA lines 

that are representative of all product 

types made on FA lines. Consistent with 

our 2013 supplemental proposal, we are 

establishing standards at the MACT 

floor level of control for phenol, 

formaldehyde and methanol emissions 

from FA bonded lines. 

In 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court found 

that the EPA had erred in establishing 

emissions standards for sources of HAP 

in the NESHAP for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing, 67 FR 26690 

(May 16, 2003), and consequently 

vacated the rules. (Sierra Club v. EPA, 

479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. March 13, 

2007)). Among other things, the Court 

found the EPA erred by failing to 

regulate processes that emitted HAP. As 

required by CAA section 112, we must 

establish emission limits for all 

processes that emit HAP based on the 

information available to us. The data 

available to the EPA indicate that FA 

lines producing products other than 

pipe and heavy density products do 

emit HAP. Therefore, the EPA is 

obligated to set limits for formaldehyde, 

phenol, and methanol for any such FA 

lines. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concerns regarding the EPA’s proposed 

limits for formaldehyde, phenol, and 

methanol. Regarding the 2011 proposal, 

the commenter asked the EPA to 

consider the example of one company 

whose compliance test data indicate 

that after switching to a non-phenol/

formaldehyde binder, the level of 

formaldehyde and methanol for its RS 

line would exceed the 2011 proposed 

standard of 0.02 pounds per ton for 

formaldehyde for RS lines and the 

proposed standard for methanol of 

0.00067 pounds per ton for new and 

reconstructed RS lines. According to the 

commenter, the data also suggested that 

an RS line at an existing source using 

non-phenol/formaldehyde binders 

would not meet the 2011 proposed 

formaldehyde standard of 0.17 pounds 

per ton for RS lines. The commenter 

also contended that the phenol limit of 

0.0011 pounds per ton in the 2011 

proposal for RS lines is so low that it 

cannot be measured with normal test 

times or with the proposed method if 

the process is performing close to the 

limit. The commenter concluded that 

the sources that switch to non-phenol/ 

formaldehyde binders would not be able 

to comply with the proposed standards 

without installing controls such as a 

thermal oxidizer, which suggested the 

proposed standards are inappropriate. 

The commenter objected to the EPA’s 

calculating the MACT floor using data 

for RS lines using non-phenol/

formaldehyde binders. The commenter 

asserted that non-phenol/formaldehyde 

binder lines are not representative of 

emissions in the affected units within 

the industry, and non-phenol/

formaldehyde binder lines should not 

be used to set the MACT floor for 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. 

The commenter requested that the EPA 

confirm that all test data used to set new 

and revised limits are based only on 

data from sources running a bonded 

product, and to confirm that none of the 

test data used to set the new and revised 

limits are based on data from sources 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

running a non-phenol/formaldehyde 

binder or unbonded product. 

Regarding the 2013 supplemental 

proposal, the commenter maintained 

that formaldehyde and methanol 

standards are not feasible for certain RS 

lines without installing both nonphenol/formaldehyde binder and 

additional controls such as thermal 

oxidizers, because of the formaldehyde 

created through combustion of natural 

gas. The commenter specifically 

mentioned the formaldehyde standard 

of 0.19 pounds per ton for RS lines as 

being borderline achievable for nonphenol/formaldehyde binders in RS 

lines for existing sources. 

Regarding the 2014 supplemental 

proposal, the commenter indicated that 

the level of formaldehyde and methanol 

emitted by RS lines would exceed the 

2014 proposed standard of 0.087 

pounds per ton for formaldehyde and 

the 2014 proposed standard for 

methanol of 0.61 pounds per ton for 

new and reconstructed sources because 

of the formaldehyde created through 

combustion of natural gas. The 

commenter added that the data also 

suggest that the formaldehyde standard 

of 0.19 pounds per ton is borderline 

passing for non-phenol/formaldehyde 

binder on some existing sources. The 

commenter explained that 

formaldehyde is a by-product of natural 

gas combustion from burners used in 

the process. The commenter indicated 

that the proposed phenol limit of 0.26 

pounds per ton is greatly improved 

since the 2011 proposed limit, but that 

it is still not consistently achievable. 

The commenter concluded that the 

proposed standards may not be able to 

be achieved even after switching to nonphenol/formaldehyde binders without 

installing controls such as a thermal 

oxidizer, which themselves will emit 

additional formaldehyde as a result of 

the combustion of natural gas to operate 

the control device. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that the data used to 

calculate MACT for major sources must 

not include data for RS lines that run a 

non-phenol/formaldehyde binder or 

unbonded product. As discussed in the 

2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 

22387), in response to the comment on 

the 2011 proposed emission limits for 

RS lines, we recalculated the emission 

limits after removing the emission test 

data for RS lines using non-phenol/

formaldehyde binders, and we reproposed emission limits for RS lines. 

However, based on this comment, we 

determined that our proposed 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol 

limits for RS lines may not accurately 

represent the average performance of the 

best performing sources. In 2015, after 

considering further information 

provided by industry representatives, 

we determined that the limits proposed 

in 2014 for RS lines likely included RS 

lines using non-phenol/formaldehyde 

binders and that the EPA could not 

determine (based on the 2011 ICR data) 

which data represented manufacturing 

lines that were using phenol/

formaldehyde binders, and which data 

represented manufacturing lines that 

were not using the phenol/

formaldehyde binder. As a result, we are 

not establishing in this final action RTR 

standards for formaldehyde, phenol, 

and methanol for RS manufacturing 

lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities. We have issued an ICR under 

section 114 of the CAA to collect 

updated emissions and process 

information from the industry, and we 

will analyze the ICR data and evaluate 

limits for RS lines at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities at a future date. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the EPA should not recalculate the 

MACT floor for formaldehyde emissions 

and that the current MACT floor for 

formaldehyde emissions is still valid. 

The commenter contended that the EPA 

should not set a MACT floor for 

formaldehyde for the second time, 

explaining that (1) the EPA has not 

provided an explanation or asserted any 

rational basis for choosing to calculate 

a new MACT floor and standard for 

formaldehyde, as opposed to using its 

discretion under CAA section 112(d)(6) 

to make an appropriate adjustment 

without recalculating the floor and 

standard; and (2) there is no basis under 

the technology review to recalculate a 

MACT floor. 

The commenter stated that nothing in 

CAA section 112(d) suggests that the 

EPA is required to establish a floor 

under CAA section 112(d)(3) more than 

once in issuing or revising MACT 

standards under CAA section 112(d). 

The commenter pointed out that this 

proposal is not consistent with other 

RTRs, for which the EPA has taken the 

position that Congress did not intend 

EPA to establish MACT floors for a 

second time when it revised a standard. 

The commenter provided the example 

of the Coke Oven RTR rulemaking, in 

which the EPA stated its rationale for 

CAA section 112(d)(6) not requiring 

additional floor determinations because 

this would ‘‘effectively convert existing 

source standards into new source 

standards . . . The EPA sees no 

indication that section 112(d)(6) was 

intended to have this type of inexorable 

downward ratcheting effect.’’ The 

commenter further pointed out litigation 

challenging the Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP RTR rule, in which the DC 

Circuit Court upheld the position that 

there should not be an inexorable 

downward ratcheting effect for the 

MACT floors (NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 

1077, 1083–84 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). The 

commenter urged the EPA to consider 

the statutorily-prescribed factors in 

recalculating the MACT floor. 

The commenter stated that the EPA is 

conducting a MACT on MACT analysis 

by recalculating the MACT floor, citing 

NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083–84 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), where the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the 

position that there should not be an 

inexorable downward ratcheting effect 

for the MACT floors. The commenter 

agreed that the EPA should calculate the 

floor for phenol and methanol, since 

standards for these HAP were missing 

from the NESHAP. 

The commenter urged the EPA to 

retain the 1999 formaldehyde limit, 

saying that the 1999 limit is still the 

MACT floor and lowering the limit 

would be ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ and would 

need to be justified accordingly. The 

commenter noted that in the proposal 

for the 1999 MACT rule, the EPA found 

that the floor for FA lines making both 

heavy density and pipe products was no 

control. The commenter observed that 

the EPA had also considered controls 

beyond-the-floor at the time, but 

concluded that the cost effectiveness 

was unreasonable. According to the 

commenter, nothing has changed since 

this proposal for FA lines. The 

commenter noted that because no new 

HAP controls have been added, the floor 

is still no control for these products. 

Response: The EPA does not agree 

that CAA section 112(d)(6) provides the 

exclusive authority to address MACT 

standards when a MACT determination 

has already been issued for the source 

category. The D.C. Circuit Court has 

held that the EPA may permissibly 

amend improper MACT determinations, 

including amendments to improperly 

promulgated floor determinations, using 

its authority under CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and (3). Medical Waste 

Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. 

EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 425–27 (D.C. Cir. 

2011). The absence of standards for 

these HAP is not proper. National Lime 

Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 633– 

34; see also Medical Waste Institute and 

Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, 645 F. 

3d at 426 (resetting MACT floor, based 

on post-compliance data, is permissible 

when originally-established floor was 

improperly established, and 

permissibility of EPA’s action does not 

turn on whether the prior standard was 

remanded or vacated). Similarly, the 

D.C. Circuit Court’s December 9, 2011 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45311 

decision in Portland Cement 

Association v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 

(D.C. Cir. 2011) confirms that CAA 

section 112(d)(6) does not constrain the 

EPA and it may reassess its standards 

more often, including revising existing 

floors if need be. The commenter is, 

thus, incorrect in arguing that CAA 

section 112(d)(6) provides the exclusive 

authority to address MACT standards 

when a MACT determination has 

already been issued for the source 

category. Further, CAA section 112(d)(6) 

itself provides that the agency must 

review and revise ‘‘as necessary.’’ The 

‘‘as necessary’’ language must be read in 

the context of CAA section 112(d)(6), 

which focuses on the review of 

developments that have occurred since 

the time of the original promulgation of 

the MACT standard and, thus, can be 

used as an opportunity to correct flaws 

that existed at the time of the original 

promulgation. 

The EPA is amending the 1999 

formaldehyde MACT floor for FA lines 

because the floor was improperly 

determined. First, the EPA determined 

under this rulemaking that the MACT 

floor for formaldehyde emissions for 

new FA lines making heavy density 

products and for new and existing FA 

lines making pipe products were set at 

the highest measured value for each of 

the subcategories. As such, the 1999 

MACT floor for formaldehyde was 

improperly set at a level achievable by 

all sources within the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category and not 

at a level defined by the CAA. Again, as 

explained in the November 2011 

proposal, when the EPA had in the past 

(incorrectly) interpreted CAA section 

112(d) as requiring standards that can be 

achieved by all sources, the D.C. Circuit 

Court has rejected that interpretation. 

‘‘EPA may not deviate from section 

7413(d)(3)’s requirement that floors 

reflect what the best performers actually 

achieve by claiming that floors must be 

achievable by all sources using MACT 

technology.’’ Cement Kiln Recycling 

Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d at 861. ‘‘EPA 

may not deviate from section 

7413(d)(3)’s requirement that floors 

reflect what the best performers actually 

achieve by claiming that floors must be 

achievable by all sources using MACT 

technology.’’ Cement Kiln Recycling 

Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d at 861 (‘‘EPA 

cannot circumvent Cement Kiln’s 

holding that section 7412(d)(3) requires 

floors based on the emission level 

actually achieved by the best performers 

(those with the lowest emission levels), 

not the emission level achievable by all 

sources, simply by redefining ‘‘best 

performing’’ to mean those sources with 

emission levels achievable by all 

sources.’’ Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 

at 881. (Emphasis in original). In 

revising the MACT floor for 

formaldehyde, the EPA is ensuring that 

the floor reflects the method established 

in CAA section 112(d) for establishing 

the MACT floor for major sources of 

HAP: (1) For existing sources, MACT 

standards must be at least as stringent 

as the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best performing 12 

percent of existing sources (for which 

the Administrator has emissions 

information) or the best performing five 

sources for source categories with less 

than 30 sources, as is the case here; and 

(2) for new sources, the MACT 

standards must be at least as stringent 

as the control level achieved in practice 

by the best controlled similar source 

(CAA section 112(d)(3)). 

Second, the EPA determined under 

this rulemaking that the EPA 

established the MACT floor for the 

formaldehyde limits for FA lines 

producing light density products (new 

and existing), automotive products (new 

and existing), and heavy density 

products (existing) as no control (i.e., no 

limit was established). Therefore, these 

sources of HAP emissions are 

unregulated under the NESHAP, which 

is an approach soundly rejected by the 

D.C. Circuit Court in both National Lime 

Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 633– 

34 and in Portland Cement Association 

v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 

2011). The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the EPA should retain 

the current MACT floor of ‘‘no control’’ 

and that the EPA’s recalculating the 

floor represents a level ‘‘beyond the 

floor.’’ Put another way, since the EPA 

did not adopt a proper MACT standard 

initially, it is not amending a MACT 

standard but adopting one for the first 

time. Consequently, the EPA is not 

barred from making MACT floor 

determinations and issuing MACT 

standards for formaldehyde pursuant to 

CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). 

Third, the EPA is removing 

formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol 

and methanol emissions, as supported 

by the commenter. The EPA may 

attribute characteristics of a subclass of 

substances to an entire class of 

substances if doing so is scientifically 

reasonable. Dithiocarbamate Task Force 

v. EPA, 98 F.3d 1394, 1399 (D.C. Cir. 

1996). We no longer believe that there 

is a correlation and, therefore, 

reasonable bases, between formaldehyde 

and phenol and methanol. Further 

discussion of the EPA’s rationale for 

removing formaldehyde as a surrogate 

for phenol and methanol emissions is 

provided in the preamble to the 2011 

proposal (76 FR 72788, 72791, and 

72796) for. 

Regarding the comment that this 

proposal is not consistent with other 

RTRs, we note that in several recent 

rulemakings we have chosen to fix 

underlying defects in existing MACT 

standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) 

and (3), provisions that directly govern 

the initial promulgation of MACT 

standards (see National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From Petroleum Refineries, October 28, 

2009, 74 FR 55670; and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Group I Polymers and 

Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading 

Operations; Pharmaceuticals 

Production; and the Printing and 

Publishing Industry, April 21, 2011, 76 

FR 22566). Regarding the comment that 

the EPA had not provided an 

explanation or asserted any rational 

basis for choosing to calculate a new 

MACT floor and standard for 

formaldehyde, in our 2011 proposal, we 

explained that the D.C. Circuit Court 

had found that we erred in establishing 

emissions standards for sources of HAP 

in the NESHAP for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing, and, 

consequently, vacated the rule. Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 

2007). These errors included incorrectly 

calculating MACT emissions limit, 

failure to set emission limits and failure 

to regulated processes that emitted HAP. 

We explained that we were taking 

action to correct similar errors in the 

1999 Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP. We identified certain HAP 

that we failed to establish standards for 

in these rules. We also explained that 

we had not established standards for 

phenol and methanol because they were 

represented by a surrogate (i.e., 

formaldehyde). 

With regard to formaldehyde 

emissions from the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category, we 

explained we were proposing MACT 

limits for existing, new, and 

reconstructed RS and FA manufacturing 

lines and presented these limits in 

Tables 4–6 of the 2011 proposal (76 FR 

72791). We also explained that we had 

a ‘‘clear obligation to set emissions 

standards for each listed HAP.’’ 

National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 

F. 3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol emission limits? 

As explained elsewhere in this 

preamble, we are eliminating the 

subcategories for FA bonded lines 

because we believe that the technical or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

21We divided the FA lines into four 

subcategories: 1. Light density, 2. automotive, 3. 

heavy density and 4. pipe products, but set 

standards for only two subcategories—heavy 

density (new) and pipe product (new and existing). 

We explained that ‘‘[b]ecause no controls are 

currently used, the MACT floor is no control and 

because the cost effectiveness of additional controls 

beyond the floor is not reasonable, the Agency is 

not setting emission limits for existing FA 

manufacturing lines producing light-density, 

automotive or heavy-density products or new FA 

manufacturing lines producing light-density or 

automotive products.’’ 61 FR 15239 (March 31, 

1997). 

design differences that distinguished 

these subcategories when the original 

rule was developed no longer exist 

(CAA section 112(d)(1)). We are also 

establishing standards at the MACT 

floor level of control for formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol emissions from 

FA bonded lines. 

The data available to us at proposal 

were emissions test data from various 

products within the heavy density 

products subcategory only, and industry 

indicated that the test data for this 

subcategory were representative of all 

products manufactured on FA bonded 

lines. Since our various proposals, no 

additional source test data have been 

provided to support continued 

subcategorization of FA lines. We, 

therefore, concluded in the various 

proposals that the limits developed for 

FA lines were representative of all 

products made on FA lines and that 

further subcategorization was no longer 

supportable. 

As also explained in our November 

25, 2011 proposal, we examined the 

1999 MACT rule and found that it does 

not include emissions standards for 

certain products manufactured on FA 

lines which do not fall into the 

regulated subcategories ‘‘pipe’’ and 

‘‘heavy density.’’ 21 The EPA has a 

‘‘clear statutory obligation to set 

emission standards for each listed HAP. 

Although Sierra Club v. EPA permits the 

Agency to look at technological controls 

to set emissions standards, it does not 

say that the EPA may avoid setting 

standards for HAP not controlled with 

technology.’’ National Lime Association 

v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 

2000) (internal citation omitted). In our 

review, we found that the foundation 

supporting the 1999 MACT standard for 

formaldehyde was developed 

incorrectly. Instead of being based upon 

the emission limit achieved by the 

average of the best performing 12 

percent of existing sources, it was set at 

a level that was achievable by all 

existing sources. As explained in our 

November 25, 2011 proposal, this 

approach has been consistently rejected 

by the D.C. Circuit. ‘‘EPA may not 

deviate from section 7413(d)(3)’s 

requirement that floors reflect what the 

best performers actually achieve by 

claiming that floors must be achievable 

by all sources using MACT technology.’’ 

Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 

255 F.3d at 861. 

For the reasons provided above, as 

proposed in the November 2014 

supplemental proposal and in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in the docket, we 

are eliminating the subcategories for FA 

lines and finalizing emissions limits at 

the MACT level of control for 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol, as 

shown in Table 3 of this preamble. 

D. Work Practice Standards for HCl and 

HF Emissions From Furnaces in the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 

Category (Major Sources) 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(h) for wool fiberglass 

manufacturing (major sources)? 

In our November 2011 proposal, we 

proposed emission limits for HF and 

HCl from glass-melting furnaces. In our 

April 2013 supplemental proposal, we 

proposed work practice standards in 

lieu of numeric emission limits, under 

CAA section 112(h), in response to 

comments and our evaluation of test 

data from industry regarding our 

November 2011 proposed limits. We 

explained that in response to comments 

on the November 2011 proposed limits, 

we re-evaluated test data that we used 

to calculate the MACT floor for the 

proposed HCl and HF standards and 

found that most of the test data reflected 

values below the detection limit of the 

test method. Specifically, over 80 

percent of the test results were values 

indicating that either HCl or HF, or both 

pollutants, in the exhaust gas stream 

were below the detection limit of the 

test methods. We, therefore, proposed 

work practice standards for the control 

of HCl and HF emissions from furnaces. 

However, in the 2013 supplemental 

proposal we did not specifically identify 

the work practice standards. In our 

November 2014 supplemental proposal, 

we noted that the source of HF and HCl 

in furnace emissions was cullet made 

from glass used in products such as 

cathode ray tubes (CRTs), microwave 

ovens, televisions, computer screens, 

and other electronics. Therefore, we 

proposed work practice standards that 

would require owners and operators of 

wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces to 

ensure that the cullet did not contain 

glass from these types of sources either 

by conducting their own internal 

inspection and recordkeeping program, 

or by receiving certification from their 

cullet suppliers. 

2. How did the work practice standards 

change for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category since 

proposal? 

In the November 2014 supplemental 

proposal, we explained the proposed 

work practice standards for HF and HCl 

in the preamble, but received comment 

that because the rule language did not 

accurately reflect the preamble 

language, that it left to interpretation the 

other sources of fluoride in the cullet 

(such as municipal water supply used to 

wash cullet). We did not intend that 

interpretation, which would be beyond 

the purposes of the NESHAP. In this 

final rule, we are correcting that 

deficiency in the November 2014 

supplemental proposal, withdrawing 

that previously proposed rule language 

and specifying in the rule text at 40 CFR 

63.1382(a)(1)(iii) the correct 

requirements, as previously proposed 

and as indicated above. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the work practice standards, and 

what are our responses? 

We received comments in support of 

and against our work practice standards 

for HCl and HF emissions from furnaces 

at wool fiberglass facilities. The 

following is a summary of the key 

comments received regarding the work 

practice standards and our responses to 

these comments. Additional comments 

on the work practice standards and our 

responses can be found in the comment 

summary and response document 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

the EPA establishing work practice 

standards for HCl and HF instead of 

numerical emission limits without first 

establishing that ‘‘measuring emission 

levels is technologically or 

economically impracticable’’ (Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d at 883–84) or that 

setting work practice standards ‘‘is 

consistent with the provisions of 

subsection (d) or (f).’’ 42 U.S.C. 

7412(h)(1). The commenter understands 

that 80 percent of emission tests were 

below the detection limit, but contends 

that this fact demonstrates that 

measuring emissions is difficult, not 

technologically impracticable. The 

commenter argues that the EPA must 

explain why it cannot use the 20 

percent of the tests above that limit, 

taking the detection level into account, 

to set appropriate emission limits. 

Another commenter requested that 

the EPA remove all of these sources 

from the calculation for the MACT floor 

because data that are below the 

minimum detection limit (MDL) of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45313 

22RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. 

Memorandum, Comments on Proposed EGU MACT 

Rule, July 19, 2011, p. 18. 

test method (BDL) are unquantifiable 

and that using BDL data are likely to set 

limits so stringent that the best 

performing sources cannot even meet 

those limits. The commenter observed 

that the data for every source in the 

MACT floor ranking is BDL; and the 

majority of HCl data points are BDL. 

The commenter contended that facilities 

will have difficulty showing compliance 

with an emission limit that is based on 

data from testing that was BDL. The 

commenter cited a memorandum from 

RMB Consulting about relying on BDL 

data.22

According to the commenter, the EPA 

should only use values that are above 

the MDL (i.e., actual values) in 

calculating the MACT floor, and that the 

emissions floor must be determined by 

quantifiable data. According to the 

commenter, in the Boiler MACT, the 

EPA reassessed the proposed emission 

limits for dioxins/furans. The 

commenter noted that, as explained by 

the EPA, a large amount of the emission 

measurement used to set the dioxin/

furan limits were below the level that 

could be accurately measured. 

Alternatively, the commenter stated 

that the EPA could propose a work 

practice standard in order for facilities 

to show compliance. Under the Boiler 

MACT, the commenter noted that the 

EPA chose to regulate dioxins/furans by 

using a work practice standard. In that 

case, the commenter stated that 55 

percent of facilities tested had dioxin/

furan emissions below the MDL for EPA 

Method 23. The commenter stated that 

a work practice standard would allow 

facilities to decrease HCl and HF 

emissions and be able to show 

compliance. 

In addition, the commenter stated that 

the EPA has made no effort to take into 

account reductions achieved as a result 

of the original MACT implementation as 

part of establishing the MACT floor. If 

a MACT floor is calculated, the 

commenter contended that it must 

consider what the emissions would 

have been at the time of the initial 

MACT promulgation in establishing the 

floor. 

Response: The EPA did not set any 

standard for HCl and HF in the original 

1999 MACT rule and is rectifying that 

deficiency (see National Lime 

Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 634) 

here by establishing standards pursuant 

to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). 

Sections 112(h)(1) and (2)(B) of the CAA 

indicate that the EPA may adopt a work 

practice standard rather than a numeric 

standard when ‘‘the application of 

measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations.’’ We evaluated 

test data that we originally used to 

calculate the MACT floor limits for HCl 

and HF in response to comments such 

as this one. Industry conducted testing 

in an attempt to obtain data for the acid 

gases HF and HCl, under the terms of 

the voluntary survey. Emissions tests 

were conducted over three 1-hour test 

runs, which is, for similar industries, 

sufficient time to detect these acid gases 

when they are emitted. However, we 

found that most of the test data reflected 

values that were BDL. Specifically, over 

80 percent of the test results were values 

BDL for both HF and HCl, indicating 

that neither HF nor HCl are present in 

measurable amounts in the exhaust gas 

stream for these sources. 

Because of the high percentage on 

non-detect test runs, we proposed work 

practice standards for HF and HCl in 

our April 2013 supplemental proposal. 

As explained in our April 2013 

supplemental proposal, the EPA regards 

situations where, as here, the majority of 

measurements are BDL as being a 

situation where measurement is not 

‘‘technologically practicable’’ within the 

meaning of CAA section 112(h). The 

EPA also believes that unreliable 

measurements raise issues of 

practicability, feasibility and 

enforceability. The application of 

measurement methodology in this 

situation would also not be ‘‘practicable 

due to . . . economic limitation’’ within 

the meaning of CAA section 112(h) 

because it would result in cost 

expended to produce analytically 

suspect measurements (78 FR 22387). 

As discussed in the preamble to the 

2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 

22387, April 15, 2013), under these 

circumstances, the EPA does not believe 

that it is technologically and 

economically practicable to measure 

HCl and HF emissions from this source 

category. ‘‘[A]pplication of 

measurement methodologies’’ (CAA 

section 112(h)(2)(B)) means more than 

taking a measurement. It must also 

mean that a measurement has some 

reasonable relation to what the source is 

emitting (i.e., that the measurement 

yields a meaningful value). That is not 

the case here and the EPA does not 

believe it reasonable to establish 

numeric emission limits for HCl and HF 

in this rule. Therefore, in the final rule, 

we are promulgating work practice 

standards consistent with our April 

2013 supplemental proposal. 

However, we disagree with the 

comment that in revising or 

promulgating MACT standards, the EPA 

may not use current test data showing 

that sources may have achieved much 

lower emissions levels as a result of 

complying with earlier standards. ‘‘EPA 

acted lawfully, in resetting the MACT 

floors based on post-compliance 

emissions data.’’ Medical Waste 

Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. 

EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 426–27 (D.C. Cir. 

2011). In addition to the work practice 

standards in the final rule, control of 

HCl and HF can also occur as a 

‘‘cobenefit’’ of conventional control 

technologies that have been installed for 

other purposes. These acid gases may be 

absorbed and neutralized when a 

scrubber is present. We, thus, believe 

that the work practice standards will 

result in the level of control of the 

exceedingly small amounts of HCl and 

HF present in wool fiberglass furnace 

emissions achieved by the best 

performing facilities in the source 

category. 

When testing for indications that a 

pollutant is emitted by a source, if the 

results are below the detection limits of 

the method, that means that the 

pollutant was not, in fact, detected. We 

do not set emission limits for all 188 

HAP on the list in CAA section 112(b), 

but only for those that are emitted from 

the processes. We required sources to 

test for HF and HCl, and most (over 80 

percent) of sources did not detect either 

of those HAP in their emissions streams. 

When this is the case for over half the 

sources in the category, we believe it is 

not appropriate to set numerical limits 

for such pollutants. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

glass cullet cannot be guaranteed by 

providers or facilities to be ‘‘free of 

chloride-, fluoride-, and fluorine-bearing 

constituents,’’ as we proposed because 

(1) cullet must be cleaned before use 

and city supplied water contains 

chloride and fluoride; (2) non-glass 

materials in cullet (including coatings 

on the glass) contain fluorides or 

chlorides; (3) recycled cullet currently 

used by the industry may contain trace 

amounts of chlorides and fluorides; and 

(4) to meet product performance 

requirements, certain glass formulations 

require glass fibers to contain small 

levels of fluoride. The commenter 

argued that the proposed requirement 

goes beyond what the industry is 

currently doing to achieve HF and HCl 

emissions below the detection limit, and 

to achieve the requirement, facilities 

would need to cease cullet use and 

substitute with other materials. 

The commenter recommended 

revising the rule to require facilities to 

‘‘maintain internal documentation that 

work practices are in place that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

maintain low HF and HCl emissions,’’ 

for 5 years, including but not limited to 

the following options: 

• Record that cullet is reasonably consistent 

with previous cullet used that has 

sustained low to non-detect HF and HCl 

emissions; or 

• Monitor chloride and/or fluoride content of 

the cullet or finished glass to verify and 

maintain insignificant trace levels of 

emissions using standard chemical analytic 

techniques; or 

• Use feedstock of raw materials having a 12- 

month rolling average of chloride content 

at or below 0.1 percent as measured once 

a year using methods similar to ASTM 

1152C/1152M or company-developed 

methods; or 

• Maintain glass formulation records that 

show that no ingredient contains 

intentionally added chloride; or 

• Maintain records from a sampling program, 

or obtain annual certification from cullet 

providers verifying that the cullet does not 

contain excessive CRT glass; or 

• Monitor fluoride content of the finished 

glass to verify that the content is consistent 

with historic levels of similar glass 

formulations; or 

• In lieu of work practices, measure HF and 

HCl emissions during emission testing 

once every 5 years to confirm that the level 

of HF and HCl emissions is not a 

statistically significant higher level than 

the level measured for the furnace during 

the rulemaking process. 

The commenter also expressed 

support for the proposed requirement 

that these records would be maintained 

for inspection by a permitting authority. 

Response: We acknowledge that 

municipal water can contain chloride 

and fluoride; however, our prohibition 

on chlorides and fluorides pertains to 

the cullet composition. In the final rule, 

we are revising the proposed work 

practice standards for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category to address this comment. 

Specifically, we are replacing the 

proposed requirement that cullet be 

‘‘free of chloride-, fluoride-, and 

fluorine-bearing constituents’’ with 

work practice standards that require 

wool fiberglass facilities to maintain 

records from either cullet suppliers or 

their internal inspections showing that 

cullet is free of the following 

components that would form HF or HCl 

in the furnace exhaust (i.e., chlorides, 

fluorides, and fluorine): Glass from 

industrial (also known as continuous 

strand, or textile) fiberglass, CRTs, 

computer monitors that include CRTs, 

and glass from microwave ovens, 

televisions or other electronics. Wool 

fiberglass facilities would ensure their 

feedstock does not contain chloride-, 

fluoride-, or fluorine-bearing cullet by 

one of two approaches: (1) Require the 

providers of external cullet to verify that 

the cullet does not include waste glass 

from the chloride-, fluoride- or fluorinebearing sources mentioned above, or (2) 

Sample their raw materials to show the 

cullet entering the furnace does not 

contain glass from these types of 

sources. To demonstrate compliance, 

facilities would maintain quality 

assurance records for raw materials and/ 

or records of glass formulations 

indicating the facility does not process 

fluoride-, fluorine-, or chloride-bearing 

materials in their furnaces, and that they 

thereby maintain low HF and HCl 

emissions. Major source facilities would 

be required to make these records 

available for inspection by the 

permitting authority upon demand. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions for the work practice 

standards? 

The EPA may adopt a work practice 

standard rather than a numeric standard 

when ‘‘the application of measurement 

methodology to a particular class of 

sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic 

limitations.’’ CAA sections 112(h)(1) 

and (2)(B). As previously explained, in 

response to comments, we had reevaluated test data that we used to 

calculate the MACT floor for the 

proposed HCl and HF standards in our 

November 2011 proposal, and found 

that most of the test data reflected 

values below the detection limit of the 

test method. Specifically, over 80 

percent of the test results were values 

indicating that both HCl and HF in the 

exhaust gas stream were below the 

detection limit of the methods. We 

believe such values are not a 

measurement of pollutants but rather an 

indication that such pollutants are not 

present in measurable concentrations. 

The EPA regards situations where, as 

here, the majority of measurements are 

below the detection limit as being a 

situation where measurement is not 

‘‘technologically practicable’’ within the 

meaning of CAA section 112(h). The 

EPA also believes that unreliable 

measurements raise issues of 

practicability, feasibility and 

enforceability. The application of 

measurement methodology in this 

situation would also not be ‘‘practicable 

due to . . . economic limitation’’ within 

the meaning of CAA section 112(h) 

because it would result in cost 

expended to produce analytically 

suspect measurements. Therefore, for 

the reasons provided above, in the 

preambles for the 2013 and 2014 

supplemental proposals, and in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in the docket, we 

are finalizing the work practice 

standards for HCl and HF emissions 

from furnaces at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities that are major 

sources. 

As we explained in our November 

2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 

68012 at 68023), in order to protect 

furnace components, wool fiberglass 

facilities identify, isolate and screen out 

fluoride- and chloride-bearing materials 

such as glass from industrial (also 

known as continuous strand, or textile) 

fiberglass, CRTs, computer monitors 

that include CRTs, glass from 

microwave ovens and glass from 

televisions. The furnace emissions 

testing shows this is an effective work 

practice to reduce emissions of these 

acid gases. HF and HCl emissions occur 

when recycled glass from these types of 

materials enters the external cullet 

stream from the recycling center. 

Owners/operators have two options 

for work practice standards. The first 

option is to require the providers of the 

external cullet to verify that the cullet 

does not include waste glass from the 

chloride-, fluoride, or fluorine-bearing 

sources mentioned above. The second 

option is to sample the raw materials to 

show the cullet entering the furnace 

does not contain glass from these types 

of sources. 

We are finalizing work practice 

standards for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category that 

require wool fiberglass facilities to 

maintain records from either cullet 

suppliers or their internal inspections 

showing that the external cullet is free 

of components that can form HF or HCl 

in the furnace exhaust (i.e., chlorides, 

fluorides and fluorine). Facilities are 

required to maintain quality assurance 

records for raw materials and/or records 

of glass formulations indicating the 

facility does not process fluoride-, 

fluorine-, or chloride-bearing materials 

in their furnaces, and that they thereby 

maintain low HF and HCl emissions. 

Major source facilities are required to 

make these records available for 

inspection by the permitting authority 

upon demand. Failure to maintain such 

records constitutes a violation from the 

requirement. 

E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Provisions for the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Source Category (Major 

and Area Sources) 

1. What SSM provisions did we propose 

for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category (major and area 

sources)? 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

DC Circuit Court vacated portions of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45315 

two provisions in the EPA’s CAA 

section 112 regulations governing the 

emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some CAA section 112 

standards apply continuously. We 

proposed eliminating the SSM 

exemption in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing rules for major sources 

(40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN). 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 

EPA proposed work practice standards 

in these rules (both 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart NNN and the new 40 CFR part 

63, subpart NN) for periods of startup 

and shutdown. We proposed the 

incorporation of work practice 

standards at startup and shutdown for 

major sources into the GACT standards 

for area sources. This would mean that 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area 

sources would have to comply with an 

alternative compliance provision for 

startup and shutdown that would 

require sources to keep records showing 

that emissions were routed to the air 

pollution control devices and that these 

control devices were operated at the 

parameters established during the most 

recent performance test that showed 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits. 

We also provided proposed regulatory 

text in the General Provisions 

applicability tables in each subpart in 

several respects consistent with vacatur 

of the SSM exemption. For example, we 

proposed eliminating the incorporation 

of the General Provisions’ requirement 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN that the 

source develop an SSM plan. We also 

proposed eliminating and revising 

certain recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that are related to the SSM 

exemption. 

In our November 2014 supplemental 

proposal, we proposed that affected 

sources comply with practices that are 

used by the best performers in the 

source category (7968016). 

2. How did the SSM provisions change 

for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category (major and area 

sources)? 

We have not changed any aspect of 

the proposed SSM provisions for 40 

CFR part 63, subparts NN and NNN 

since the 2014 supplemental proposal. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the SSM provisions for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category (major and area sources), and 

what are our responses? 

We received comments for and 

against the proposed revisions to 

remove the SSM exemptions for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category. The commenters who were 

against the proposed revisions did not 

provide new information or a basis for 

the EPA to change the proposed 

provisions and did not provide 

sufficient information to show that 

facilities cannot comply with the work 

practice standards during periods of 

startup and shutdown. The comments 

and our specific responses to those 

comments can be found in the comment 

summary and response document 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions for the SSM provisions for the 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category (major and area sources)? 

For the reasons provided above, in the 

preamble for the proposed rules, and in 

the comment summary and response 

document available in the docket, we 

have removed the SSM exemption from 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP for major and area sources; 

eliminated or revised certain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the eliminated 

SSM exemption; and removed or 

modified inappropriate, unnecessary, or 

redundant language in the absence of 

the SSM exemption. We are, therefore, 

finalizing our proposed determination 

that facilities comply with the work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces in 40 CFR part 63, 

subparts NN and NNN. 

F. Other Changes Made to the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP 

(Major and Area Sources) 

1. What other changes did we propose 

for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP (major and area sources)? 

a. Electronic Reporting (Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Major and Area Sources) 

As stated in the preamble to the 

November 2011 proposal, the EPA is 

taking a step to increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and data 

accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is 

requiring owners and operators of wool 

manufacturing facilities to submit 

electronic copies of certain required 

performance test reports. See the 

discussion in section III.G of this 

preamble for more detail. 

b. Test Methods and Testing Frequency 

(Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major 

and Area Sources) 

For both major and area sources, we 

are finalizing, as proposed, the addition 

of EPA Method 29 for measuring the 

concentrations of chromium. 

For major sources only, we are 

finalizing requirements for methods to 

measure PM, phenol, formaldehyde, and 

methanol. We are finalizing the 

requirement, as proposed, to maintain 

the filter temperature at 248 ± 25 

degrees Fahrenheit when using Method 

5 to measure PM emissions from 

furnaces. We are also amending the 

NESHAP to allow owners or operators 

to measure PM emissions from furnaces 

using either EPA Method 5 or Method 

29. 

We are finalizing, as proposed, the 

addition of EPA Method 318 for 

measuring the concentration of phenol 

and alternative test methods for 

measuring the concentration of 

methanol (EPA Methods 318 or 308). 

We are finalizing, as proposed, the 

replacement of a minimum sampling 

time of 1 hour with the specification to 

collect 10 spectra when using EPA 

Method 318. For Method 316, we are 

finalizing, as proposed, the requirement 

to collect a minimum sampling volume 

of 2 dscm; however, we are not 

finalizing the proposed minimum 

sampling run time for EPA Method 316 

of 2 hours. We are also finalizing 

editorial changes to the performance 

testing and compliance procedures to 

specify formaldehyde, methanol, 

phenol, and chromium; and compliance 

procedures for HF and HCl. 

Additionally, we are finalizing, as 

proposed, the requirement for existing 

sources to conduct performance tests to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

chromium emission limit for gas-fired 

furnaces no later than July 31, 2017, and 

annually thereafter. We are also 

finalizing, as proposed, the requirement 

for existing sources to conduct 

performance tests to demonstrate 

compliance with the phenol, 

formaldehyde, and methanol emissions 

limits for FA lines no later than July 31, 

2017, and every 5 years thereafter. We 

are finalizing the requirement for new 

sources to conduct performance tests to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emissions limits no later than January 

25, 2016 or 180 days after initial startup, 

whichever is later. Gas-fired glassmelting furnaces must demonstrate 

compliance with the chromium 

emission limits annually after the first 

compliance test, and whenever the 

amount of cullet increases from that 

used in the most recent performance test 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45316 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

showing compliance with the standard, 

and all other processes must 

demonstrate compliance with the other 

emission limits every 5 years after the 

first successful compliance test. 

c. Applicability and Compliance Period 

(Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major 

and Area Sources) 

For major sources, we are clarifying, 

as proposed, that 40 CFR part 63, NNN 

applies to FA lines regardless of the 

product being manufactured on the FA 

line and we are finalizing the 

compliance period of 2 years for 

existing sources subject to the 

chromium, formaldehyde, HCl, HF, 

phenol, PM, and methanol emission 

limits. 

For area sources, we are finalizing, as 

proposed, the compliance period of 2 

years for existing sources subject to the 

chromium emission limits. 

d. Definitions (Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Major and Area Sources) 

In this action, we are finalizing, as 

proposed, definitions that apply to both 

major and area sources. These include a 

definition for ‘‘gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace’’, revisions to the definition of 

‘‘new source’’, and the notification 

requirements to update the citation to 

the November 2011 proposal. We are 

finalizing, as proposed, a definition for 

‘‘incinerator’’ in 40 CFR part 63, NNN 

(major sources). 

e. Parameter Monitoring (Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and 

Area Sources) 

For both major and area sources, we 

are finalizing, as proposed, the 

monitoring requirements for furnaces to 

provide flexibility in establishing 

appropriate monitoring parameters. We 

are also requiring that facilities 

operating gas-fired furnaces maintain a 

30-day rolling average of the percentage 

of cullet used in the raw materials fed 

to the furnace. To demonstrate 

compliance with this operating 

parameter, owners or operators must 

record a daily average value of the 

percentage of cullet used for each 

operating day and must include all of 

the daily averages recorded during the 

previous 30 operating days in 

calculating the rolling 30-day average. 

For major sources only, we are also 

finalizing, as proposed, the monitoring 

requirements for FA lines, to provide 

flexibility in establishing appropriate 

monitoring parameters. 

f. General Provisions Applicability 

Table (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

Major and Area Sources) 

For major sources, we are also making 

minor corrections to the citations in 

Table 1 (40 CFR part 63 General 

Provision applicability table) to reflect 

the final amendments in this action, and 

the revisions that have been made to the 

General Provisions since 1999. 

For area sources, we are identifying 

the applicability of part 40 CFR part 63 

General Provisions to subpart NN. 

2. How did the provisions regarding 

these other changes to the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP 

(major and area sources) change since 

proposal? 

We have not made any changes to the 

proposed provisions for electronic 

reporting; testing methods and 

frequency; applicability; compliance 

period; definitions; or the General 

Provision applicability table. However, 

we are revising the parameter 

monitoring standards of 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart NNN to require daily 

monitoring and recording of the 

percentage of cullet used in the raw 

materials fed to gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces and calculation of a rolling 30- 

day average. The parameter monitoring 

requirements for area sources regulated 

by subpart NN reference the same 

requirements for major sources in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart NNN. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the other changes to the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP 

(major and area sources), and what are 

our responses? 

We received several comments 

received regarding electronic reporting; 

testing methods and frequency; 

applicability; compliance period; 

parameter monitoring; definitions or 

revisions to the General Provisions 

applicability table. The following is a 

summary of the key comments received 

regarding the technology review and our 

responses to these comments. 

Additional comments regarding these 

changes to the NESHAP and our 

responses can be found in the comment 

summary and response document 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). 

Comment: For both the major (NNN) 

and the area (NN) source rules, one 

commenter requested a one-time 

performance test, or alternatively a 5- 

year testing requirement for furnaces, 

instead of the proposed annual 

performance tests, and asked that 

sources be allowed to test one 

‘representative’ furnace instead of 

having to test every furnace subject to 

the rule. The commenter contended that 

the EPA’s rationale that chromium 

emissions increase with age has no 

factual basis because age is not a 

causative factor for increased chromium 

emissions. The commenter also pointed 

out that annual testing is not consistent 

with other MACT (the Hazardous Waste 

MACT requires testing every 5 years), 

GACT, and NSPS standards, as well as 

state performance testing requirements. 

Response: In our April 2013 

supplemental proposal (72 FR 22378), 

the EPA proposed reduced testing 

requirements for sources with emissions 

that are 75 percent or less of the 

proposed chromium limit. Subsequent 

to that proposal, the EPA determined 

that this reduced testing frequency 

would not provide sufficient 

information to determine compliance 

with the rule for either the plant 

operator or the EPA because chromium 

emissions increase with furnace age. 

Refer to the EPA’s memorandum 

‘‘Chromium Emissions and Furnace 

Age’’ (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042–0332) 

for a summary of the data and 

information that EPA used to determine 

that furnace age causes and increase in 

chromium emissions for gas-fired 

furnaces. Regarding the comment that 

there are some federal and state 

regulations that require only initial 

testing, there are also federal and state 

regulations that require annual testing 

(e.g., Portland Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart LLL). Each regulation 

establishes a testing frequency based on 

the particular characteristics of the 

industry that will allow the EPA to 

ensure compliance with the standards. 

We have determined that annual testing 

is appropriate here because the data and 

the technical literature show that a 

furnace’s chromium emissions can 

increase over a period of a few years. 

The wool fiberglass furnace refractory 

products degrade due to the corrosive 

and erosive nature of the wool fiberglass 

furnace environment. The wool 

fiberglass oxyfuel furnaces operate 

continuously over the furnace campaign 

of 10–12 years, and, according to 

industry statements, as the furnace ages, 

it loses an average of 20,000 pounds 

annually from the refractory. The 

pattern of refractory erosion is semispherical, and the exposed refractory 

surface area increases exponentially 

because it is constantly being eroded in 

a curved 3-dimensional surface pattern. 

This pattern of furnace refractory wear 

is responsible for the exponential 

increase in chromium emissions from 

wool fiberglass furnaces. For more 

information on the relationship between 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45317 

wool fiberglass furnace age and 

increasing chromium emissions, see the 

paper ‘‘Mechanisms of Chromium 

Emissions From Wool Fiberglass 

Furnaces,’’ June 2015, in the docket to 

this rule). 

Comment: One commenter disagreed 

with the EPA’s listing all gas-fired 

furnaces for regulation under the area 

source rule for chromium emissions, 

and asserted that for both the major 

source rule and the area source rule, 

only certain gas-fired furnaces, oxyfuel 

furnaces, should be regulated for 

emissions of chromium compounds. 

The commenter suggested that the 

furnace type and design, not the 

chromium content of furnace 

refractories, impacts chrome emissions, 

and only oxyfuel furnaces have the 

specific design features associated with 

high chromium emissions. The 

commenter listed the following factors 

as responsible for oxyfuel furnaces 

emitting high hexavalent chromium: 

Higher flame temperature, high bulk 

wall temperature (oxyfuel temperatures 

peak at 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit; other 

gas furnaces peak at 3,560 degrees 

Fahrenheit), more chrome refractory 

brick above glass level, higher water 

vapor concentration, and an oxidizing 

atmosphere. The commenter argued that 

some of the air-gas furnaces that are not 

oxyfuel have lower surface temperature, 

and the surface temperature above the 

glass line is the single most influential 

variable influencing hexavalent 

chromium emissions, not the fuel type. 

In the commenter’s opinion, air-gas 

furnaces should not be regulated in the 

area source rule alongside oxyfuel 

furnaces. 

The commenter noted that one air-gas 

furnace was measured emitting high 

levels of chromium compounds, 

pointing out that it is different from 

other non-oxyfuel air-gas furnaces 

because it is not standard construction 

and it was at the end of its life. The 

commenter also added that furnace has 

now been shut down. 

The commenter also indicated that, 

despite their potential for increased 

chrome emissions, oxyfuel furnaces will 

continue to be used for a number of 

important reasons, including 

environmental benefits: (1) Oxyfuel 

furnaces reduce NOX and CO emissions 

because they emit less of these 

pollutants than does combustion with 

air, and some state and local regulations 

require reduced NOX emissions; (2) 

oxyfuel firing reduces NOX emissions 

because it does not introduce nitrogen 

from combustion air into the furnace; (3) 

oxyfuel furnaces use less energy than 

air-gas furnaces by obviating the need to 

heat nitrogen contained in ambient air 

and, thus, produce less greenhouse gas 

emissions; and (4) oxyfuel firing also 

produces a reduced volume of flue gases 

which lowers the gas velocity in the 

furnace combustion zone and lowers the 

potential to entrain PM. 

Response: We note that this is a 

comment addressing the furnace 

technology of the wool fiberglass 

manufacturing industry, and as such 

applies to both major sources (under 

NNN) and area sources (under NN). This 

comment is addressed here as it first 

applies to major sources. We note that 

the same principles apply to area 

sources in this source category. 

We disagree with the commenter that 

air-gas furnaces do not warrant a 

chromium emission limit. Furnace 

emissions test data were collected from 

all wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities to determine the scope and 

extent of the area source rule limits. The 

data collected for gas-fired furnaces 

show that oxyfuel furnaces, as the 

commenter correctly points out, have 

the greatest potential to emit chromium 

compounds, followed by air-gas 

furnaces. This is because both types of 

gas-fired furnaces operate at elevated 

temperatures (exceeding 3,000 degrees 

Fahrenheit) at and above the level of the 

glass melt (well in excess of the 

temperature required to liberate and 

oxidize chromium compounds from the 

chromium refractory of the furnace 

vessel), are heated with natural gas and 

air (air-gas) or natural gas and oxygen 

(oxyfuel), and are constructed using 

chromium refractories that are capable 

of resisting the corrosive and erosive 

wear inherent in wool fiberglass furnace 

environment. 

In addition, as the commenter 

acknowledged, one air-gas furnace 

constructed using what the commenter 

described as a ‘‘non-standard design,’’ 

measured chromium emissions at levels 

higher than most of the oxyfuel furnaces 

that were tested. Additionally, 

according to industry comments and the 

information we collected under the 

2012 ICR, all the oxyfuel furnaces in the 

source category are constructed using 

materials similar in type and chromium 

content to those used to construct the 

highest emitting oxyfuel furnace. There 

is nothing to prevent a similar furnace 

from being constructed at any site. 

However, as required, we set emissions 

limits based on the information 

available to us, and we find that both 

oxyfuel furnaces and air-gas furnaces 

have greater propensity than electric 

furnaces, by virtue of their construction, 

design, and operating temperatures, to 

form and emit chromium compounds. 

As explained in the preamble to the 

2013 supplemental proposal, these 

conditions (high temperatures, available 

chromium and corrosive furnace gases) 

are factors that contribute to higher 

chromium emissions at wool fiberglass 

furnaces. As stated by the commenter 

and by other industry representatives, 

wool fiberglass companies intend to 

expand their use of chromium 

refractories in furnace designs. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

view that we should address specific 

facilities only for this regulation. First, 

we note that NESHAP are national rules 

that apply to source categories rather 

than individual facilities, and while we 

do have the ability to subcategorize by 

process size, type, or class, we cannot 

simply target an individual facility or 

facilities. Second, nothing prevents an 

oxyfuel or air-gas furnace similar to the 

high emitting furnaces to be constructed 

at any existing or new wool fiberglass 

facility, and it is incumbent upon the 

EPA to prevent the danger to public 

health that would result from such a 

furnace being located at other sites. As 

the commenter pointed out, ‘‘Despite 

their potential for increased chrome 

emissions, oxyfuel furnaces will 

continue to be used for a number of 

important reasons . . ..’’, and as 

discussed in our 2011 proposal, we 

considered the resulting impact if the 

same furnace were to be constructed at 

any other existing wool fiberglass 

manufacturing site. As documented in 

our auxiliary risk characterization 

‘‘Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Mineral Wool Production and Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source 

Categories’’ and ‘‘Maximum Predicted 

HEM–3 Chronic Risks (Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing) based on Revised— 

What If Analysis,’’ available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1042–0086 and EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–1042–0263, respectively), 

we found that the CertainTeed facility 

in Athens, Georgia would have a risk of 

400-in-1 million if it were to install a 

furnace similar to the high-chromium 

emitting furnace at Kansas City; and that 

the Athens, GA facility is now an area 

source that will be subject to the new 

area source standard (having recently 

phased out the use of phenol/

formaldehyde on the bonded lines). 

While most wool fiberglass furnaces at 

area sources currently emit chromium at 

levels well below the proposed level of 

the chromium emission limits, the 

limits serve as a backstop to prevent 

high emitters from emitting chromium 

compounds in an uncontrolled manner. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about the proposed changes to 

Method 5 that reduced the testing 

temperature of the probe by 100 degrees 

to improve the accuracy of the method, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45318 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

23Testing was conducted at the Certainteed, Inc. 

facility in Mountaintop, PA in December 1991, 

October 1995, and during several tests conducted 

during the 1998–1999 time period for the state 

compliance reports. 

and whether this change will increase 

the potential for noncompliance with 

the PM standard. Specifically, the 

commenter stated that ‘‘what once may 

have passed through the apparatus now 

may become filterable’’ and, thus, be 

counted as PM because of the 

temperature difference. Further, the 

commenter pointed out that the data 

used to establish MACT for PM were 

collected at the higher temperature 

specified in 40 CFR 63.1385(a)(5) of 

subpart NNN. 

Response: In the final regulation, we 

are requiring that owners or operators 

conduct annual emissions tests for 

chromium, and to test for PM emissions 

every 5 years. To reduce the testing 

burden on facilities, the final rule 

specifies that owners or operators can 

measure PM emissions from furnaces 

using either EPA Method 5 or Method 

29. Consequently, for the years when 

the facility must test for both chromium 

and filterable PM emissions, owners or 

operators can use Method 29 to obtain 

measurements for both chromium and 

filterable PM, rather than having to use 

Methods 5 and 29 separately. 

The 1999 NESHAP specified that 

owners or operators must use EPA 

Method 5 with the filter temperature 

maintained at 350 ± 25 degrees 

Fahrenheit during for the test. However, 

Method 29 refers to the filter 

temperature specifications in Method 5 

which requires that the filter be 

maintained at 248 ± 25 degrees 

Fahrenheit during testing. To maintain 

consistency with Method 29, we are 

amending the NESHAP to specify that 

owners or operators must maintain the 

filter temperature at 248 ± 25 degrees 

Fahrenheit when using Method 5 to 

measure filterable PM concentrations. 

We acknowledge that maintaining the 

Method 5 filter at 248 ± 25 degrees 

Fahrenheit during testing has the 

potential capture to more PM than 

would be captured at the higher filter 

temperature; however, we do not 

believe that the change in filter 

temperature that we are specifying in 

the final rule will result in wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities being 

in noncompliance with the final PM 

standards. As noted in the 2013 

supplemental proposal (78 FR 22383), 

the data submitted to EPA, which 

includes filterable PM data collected 

using Method 29 and a filter 

temperature operating at 248 ± 25 

degrees Fahrenheit, show that all gasfired glass-melting furnaces are 

currently meeting the PM standard, as 

proposed, of 0.33 pounds of PM per ton 

of glass pulled. 

Comment: One commenter disagreed 

with the EPA’s proposal to reduce 

testing frequency to every 3 years. Due 

to the past history of unknown and 

unreported chromium emissions, 

innovation and changes within the wool 

fiberglass industry, the potential for 

unpredictable changes in chromium 

emissions, and the environmental 

justice impacts of the industry, the 

commenter requested the EPA to 

increase the frequency and quality of 

the monitoring and reporting 

requirements of the rules. 

Response: The EPA is finalizing 

annual testing, and removing the option 

proposed in 2013 to test every 3 years. 

The EPA agrees with the commenter 

that annual testing is required due to the 

fact that emission test data show that 

emissions can significantly increase 

with furnace age. Refer to section III.D.4 

of this preamble and to the 2014 

supplemental proposal for further 

discussion about the EPA’s rationale for 

requiring annual testing. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions regarding these other changes 

to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

NESHAP (major and area sources)? 

For the reasons provided above and in 

the preamble for the proposed rule, we 

are finalizing the proposed provisions 

regarding electronic reporting; testing 

methods and frequency; applicability; 

compliance period; parameter 

monitoring; definitions; and the General 

Provision applicability table. 

VII. What is included in the final Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for area 

sources? 

A. Generally Available Control 

Technology (GACT) Analysis for Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources 

We are finalizing, as described in this 

final action, the chromium emission 

limits for both new and existing gasfired glass-melting furnaces at area 

sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category (see 

Table 4 in section V.E of this preamble). 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (d)(5) for 

area sources in the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category? 

We initially proposed GACT 

standards for area sources in the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category on April 15, 2013 (78 FR 

22377). In that proposal, we proposed 

emission limits for chromium (0.00006 

pounds per ton of glass pulled) and PM 

(0.33 pounds per ton of glass pulled) for 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area 

sources. To maintain consistency with 

the major source rule, we proposed that 

facilities use the same requirements for 

PM and chromium test methods and 

monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping specified in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart NNN. We also proposed to 

include an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations of emission 

limits that are caused by malfunctions. 

In the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 

FR 68024), we proposed removal of the 

PM emission limit based on public 

comments the EPA received asserting 

that setting both PM and chromium 

limits was not necessary. We reviewed 

the technologies and emissions test data 

for controls that are in place at wool 

fiberglass furnaces. In some test reports, 

we had both inlet and outlet 

measurements of both PM and 

chromium. From these tests we saw 

that, in order for furnaces to meet the 

chromium limit, they would have to 

control PM, a fraction of which is 

chromium compounds. Because 

chromium is the specific pollutant of 

concern from the furnace process, and 

because under the Strategy we may 

either address pollutants of concern 

through an appropriate surrogate, or 

directly regulate the pollutant of 

concern, we are setting emission limits 

only for chromium from area sources. 

However, affected sources will still need 

to achieve PM reductions in order to 

meet the chromium limit. The PM 

controls in place at gas-fired glassmelting furnaces achieve an average 

efficiency of 98 percent. PM in the 

furnace exhaust includes chromium, 

and due to the high production rate of 

the continuous furnace process, this can 

be a significant amount of chromium 

emitted during the course of a year. 

Source testing conducted on two wool 

fiberglass furnaces at one facility 23

measured chromium at both the inlet 

and the outlet of the DESP. This test 

showed chromium entering the DESP 

averaged 1,500 pounds per year. Both 

PM and chromium were measured at the 

outlet of the DESP: Emissions of PM 

averaged 1.5 tons per year, and 

emissions of chromium averaged 11.4 

pounds per year. This indicates to us 

that if sources attempted to remove their 

PM controls they would not be able to 

meet the chromium limit. 

In the 2014 supplemental proposal, 

we also withdrew our proposal to 

include an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations of emission 

limits that are caused by malfunctions 

(79 FR 68015). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45319 

2. How did the GACT analysis change 

for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area 

sources? 

In response to comments on our 

proposed chromium compounds limits, 

and as discussed in section VI.A of this 

preamble, we are finalizing a chromium 

compounds emission limit for gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces for major sources 

at wool fiberglass manufacturing 

facilities of 0.00025 pounds per ton of 

glass pulled. Consistent with our 

November 2014 supplemental proposal, 

we are not finalizing a PM emissions 

limit for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

at area sources. 

Based on comments we received in 

response to the November 2014 

supplemental proposal, we again 

reviewed the cost and control options 

and found using new cost information 

that the limit as proposed was not as 

cost effective as we initially believed. 

We determined that it was appropriate 

to modify the proposed limit of 0.00006 

pounds per ton of glass pulled because 

the cost effectiveness for the emission 

reduction option was $660,000 per 

pound of chromium reduced for the raw 

material substitution option, and 

$620,000 per pound chromium reduced 

for the furnace rebuild option. We 

believe these costs are not reasonable 

compared to other cases where the EPA 

has regulated highly toxic pollutants, 

such as hexavalent chromium. We, 

therefore, reviewed the data to 

determine whether a higher limit than 

previously proposed would be more 

cost effective while still significantly 

reducing chromium emissions from 

wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces. We found that all gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces located at wool 

fiberglass area sources currently emit 

chromium compounds at rates below 

0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. 

These area sources together emit 18 

pounds of chromium compounds 

annually. 

We compared the chromium emission 

reductions that would have resulted 

under the previously proposed emission 

limit of 0.00006 pounds per ton of glass 

pulled to the reductions that result from 

the final limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton 

of glass pulled. The limit of 0.00006 

pounds per ton of glass pulled would 

have resulted in a chromium emissions 

reduction of 8.5 pounds per year at area 

sources. The final limit of 0.00025 

pounds per ton of glass pulled does not 

result in any chromium emissions 

reductions. This is due to the overall 

low emissions of chromium at area 

sources based on the most recent test 

data. The furnaces at area sources are 

mostly new furnaces of advanced 

design. While immediate emission 

reductions would not be realized, this 

final limit sets a backstop so that 

another high-chromium-emitting, gasfired glass-melting furnace cannot be 

operated at an area source in this 

industry. This is important for this 

industry because certain furnaces have 

been shown to emit increasing amounts 

of chromium as their high-chromium 

refractory lining begins to degrade. 

We revised our GACT analysis as two 

approaches could be used by industry to 

reduce chromium emissions from gasfired furnaces. One approach is to 

rebuild the furnace at an annualized 

cost of $462,000 per year per furnace, 

and the other is to replace one raw 

material (cullet) with another material 

(raw minerals), which the industry 

stated would result in lower chromium 

emissions, at an average cost of about 

$1.3 million per year, depending on the 

production rate of each area source 

facility. Industry test data show that 

area sources will need to maintain their 

currently low levels of chromium 

emissions to meet the 0.00025 pounds 

per ton limit. 

Further, in evaluating available 

technology at area sources, we also 

considered the furnace technology for 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in use at 

major sources. Under CAA section 

112(d)(5), we may set the GACT 

emission limit for area sources that 

provides for the use of generally 

available control technologies to reduce 

HAP, and we are not precluded from 

setting the limits for area sources 

equivalent to the limits for major 

sources. In this instance, as previously 

explained, there are no differences 

between gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

in use at area and major sources. 

Moreover, major sources become area 

sources only by virtue of eliminating 

formaldehyde from their processes. 

Therefore, we believe that the control 

measure for reducing chromium 

emissions (i.e., furnace rebuild) used by 

major sources is generally available for 

area sources, and we are finalizing the 

same emission limit of 0.00025 pounds 

total chromium per ton of glass pulled 

for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at 

area sources, under CAA section 

112(d)(5). 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the GACT analysis for Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources, 

and what are our responses? 

We received comments in support of 

and against our GACT analyses. The 

following is a summary of the key 

comments received regarding the GACT 

analysis for area sources in the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category and our responses to these 

comments. Additional comments on the 

risk assessment and our responses can 

be found in the comment summary and 

response document available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1042). 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that the EPA has not met procedural 

requirements necessary to regulate area 

sources under CAA section 112. The 

commenter contended that the EPA 

does not have the authority to list or 

regulate area sources under CAA section 

112 unless the agency first finds that the 

source category presents a threat of 

adverse effects to human health or the 

environment. The commenter argued 

that the EPA’s own risk assessment 

indicates ‘‘risks due to hexavalent 

chromium and formaldehyde are 

acceptable.’’ In the commenter’s opinion 

‘‘all the EPA has done is claim that: (1) 

Because area sources, like major 

sources, contribute chromium 

compounds, and (2) because many 

sources that once were major sources 

have since become area sources, it 

follows that area sources should also be 

regulated.’’ Further, the commenter 

stated that the EPA, in listing area 

sources, has not complied with section 

307 of the CAA, which requires the EPA 

to provide to the public a summary of 

the basis for its decision to list the wool 

fiberglass industry as an area source 

(i.e., factual data underlying the 

decision, methodology used in 

obtaining data, and the major legal 

interpretations and policy 

considerations underlying the proposal). 

The commenter also argued that section 

553 of the Administrative Procedures 

Act (APA) mandates a ‘‘notice and 

comment’’ period for the EPA’s decision 

to list this industry as an area source 

due to an ‘‘adverse effects’’ finding, to 

give stakeholders an opportunity to 

comment on findings that form the basis 

of the proposed rulemaking. 

Response: In section II.D of the 

preamble to our 2013 supplemental 

proposal (78 FR 22375, April 15, 2013), 

we presented the legal basis for our 

decision to add gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces to the list of area source 

categories to be regulated. Sections 

112(c) and 112(k) of the CAA require the 

EPA to identify and list the area source 

categories that represent not less than 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). Specifically, 

sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) of 

the CAA require the EPA to list area 

sources representing 90 percent or more 

of emissions of the 30 urban HAP 

regardless of whether the EPA has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

issued an adverse effects finding for 

each individual area source category 

that contributes to achieving the 90 

percent emissions goal. 

As documented in the preamble to the 

2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 

22375, April 15, 2013) and in the 

memorandum ‘‘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’’ 

(February 18, 2011; EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–1042–0262), the EPA has achieved 

the 90 percent reduction of national 

chromium emissions required by the 

Strategy; however, as further stated in 

the 2013 supplemental proposal, 

nothing in the CAA prevents the agency 

from going beyond the statutory 

minimum of 90 percent, especially if 

generally available control technology 

for the source category is available at a 

reasonable cost. Indeed, to date, we 

have established emission standards for 

sources accounting for almost 100 

percent of area source emissions of 

certain urban HAP (e.g., 99 percent of 

arsenic and beryllium compound 

emissions). 

Regarding the commenter’s opinion 

that the reason the EPA is regulating 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces as area 

sources is that these sources were once 

regulated under the NESHAP and that 

they are similar to major sources, the 

EPA did discuss these facts in the 

preamble to the 2013 supplemental 

proposal (78 FR 22382, April 15, 2013). 

These facts serve to inform the EPA’s 

understanding of this area source 

category, but they are not the reason the 

EPA is regulating these area sources. 

The EPA is regulating gas-fired furnaces 

located at area sources to comply with 

the Strategy to address the annual 

emissions of chromium from these 

sources, as the EPA explained in the 

preamble to the 2013 supplemental 

proposal (78 FR 22375, April 15, 2013). 

In doing so, the EPA is addressing the 

high levels of chromium emissions, in 

particular hexavalent chromium 

emissions. As explained in the 2013 

supplemental proposal preamble, gasfired glass-melting furnaces in this 

source category have the potential to 

emit high emissions of chromium and to 

experience emission increases in the 

future: 

‘‘. . . we have determined that gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities can emit higher 

levels of metal HAP, and also 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 

glass-melting furnaces with oxyfuel glassmelting furnaces. Oxyfuel 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 gas-fired 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.’’ (78 FR 22377, April 15, 2013) 

Based on the chromium emissions 

data for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

in the source category available to the 

EPA, we have established that emissions 

for a furnace can vary according to its 

type, design, operation, and age. The 

EPA provided an example in the 

preamble to the 2013 supplemental 

proposal of such variability for the 

CertainTeed’s Kansas City facility, the 

highest-emitting glass-melting furnace, 

for which chromium emissions (93 

percent of which were in the hexavalent 

state) increased from 5 pounds per year 

to 540 pounds per year over a period of 

7 years (78 FR 22381). These facts 

demonstrate the current and potential 

future high levels of chromium emitted 

from area sources. Further, the EPA has 

clearly indicated the high level of health 

risk associated with chromium 

emissions. In the preamble to the 2013 

supplemental proposal, the EPA stated 

‘‘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’’ (78 FR 

22374, April 15, 2013). 

Regarding the comment that the EPA 

has not complied with section 307 of 

the CAA because it has not provided to 

the public a summary of the basis for its 

decision to list gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces as area sources (i.e., factual 

data underlying the decision, 

methodology used in obtaining data, 

and the major legal interpretations and 

policy considerations underlying the 

proposal), the EPA disagrees. We stated 

our intention in our 2013 supplemental 

proposal to exceed the 90 percent 

threshold for chromium emissions 

under the Strategy by listing gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces at area sources 

(78 FR 22376, April 15, 2013), and we 

made clear our intent to regulate 

chromium due to the toxicity of the 

substance (78 FR 22374, April 15, 2013). 

We did not conduct a health assessment 

and finding for chromium from this area 

source category because we are not 

obligated to do so under sections 

112(c)(3), (d)(5), or (k) of the CAA. For 

example, in our notice of revision to the 

area source category list in 2002 (67 FR 

70427, November 22, 2002), we listed 23 

new source categories as area sources to 

meet or exceed the 90 percent threshold 

for all 30 HAP addressed by the 

Strategy, and the document included no 

risk-based rationale for listing each 

source category that exceeded the 90 

percent target. 

Further, regarding the comment that 

the EPA has not complied with APA 

section 553 and section 307 of the CAA, 

we described our methodology for 

collecting these emissions data, as 

described in section II.E of the 2013 

supplemental proposal preamble (78 FR 

22376, April 15, 2013), and provided an 

opportunity for comment following that 

supplemental proposal. Regarding the 

legal basis for our listing area sources in 

section II.D, we presented this 

information in section II.E of the 

preamble to the 2013 supplemental 

proposal (78 FR 22376, April 15, 2013) 

in compliance with section 307. 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

the proposed regulation of area sources 

because it is inappropriate and 

unjustified for the EPA to draw firm 

conclusions at this time about the need 

to regulate area sources, in particular 

regarding a threat of adverse effects to 

human health from area sources. The 

commenter contended that the EPA’s 

assessment of chromium emissions from 

the major source category in the 2011 

proposal was fundamentally flawed and 

did not support the 2011 proposal, and 

that the EPA admitted in the 2011 

proposal preamble that it must collect 

more information before drawing a 

conclusion regarding the wool fiberglass 

area source category and ‘‘a threat of 

adverse effects to human health or the 

environment.’’ The commenter argued 

that both of these facts reflect on the 

EPA’s readiness to regulate area sources. 

The commenter further observed that 

the EPA may regulate a category of area 

sources only after making a finding 

under CAA section 112(c)(3) that HAP 

emissions from such source category 

present ‘‘a threat of adverse effects to 

human health or the environment’’ that 

warrant regulation. 

Another commenter objected to the 

proposed regulation of area sources, 

given the limited value such a rule 

would provide. The commenter stated 

that the majority of wool fiberglass 

manufacturers are no longer major 

sources, observing that the most 

significant change since 1999 is the 

voluntary substitution of phenol/

formaldehyde binders with non-phenol/ 

formaldehyde binders, resulting in 

reduction in HAP emissions from this 

industry of the chief HAP regulated by 

the Wool Fiberglass MACT Standard. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45321 

The commenter suggested that the 

health risk arising from the production 

of wool fiber glass insulation products 

has been significantly and sufficiently 

reduced and that any remaining residual 

risk does not justify subjecting the 

industry to additional regulatory 

requirements in the form of an area 

source standard. 

Response: As described in the 

preamble to the April 2013 

supplemental proposal (78 FR 22379), 

the EPA conducted a CAA section 114 

survey to collect additional test data on 

chromium emissions from glass-melting 

furnaces, so that the EPA would have 

test data for all glass-melting furnaces. 

The area source standards proposed in 

2013 and being finalized in this 

rulemaking are based on this complete 

set of emission data. Regarding the 

comments that there is insufficient 

health risk to warrant regulation of area 

sources and that the EPA is required to 

establish a ‘‘threat of adverse health 

effects’’ to regulate area sources, as 

noted in the comment above, the legal 

basis for our decision to add gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces to the list of area 

source categories to be regulated is 

based on sections 112(c) and 112(k) of 

the CAA which require the EPA to 

identify and list the area source 

categories that represent not less than 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), and is not based on 

CAA section 112(c)(3). 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the GACT analysis for 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area 

sources? 

Because of the considerations 

discussed above in this preamble, as 

well as in the preamble for the 

November 2014 supplemental proposal 

and in the comment summary and 

response document available in the 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042), we 

are finalizing revised GACT standards. 

B. What are the final requirements for 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area 

sources? 

In this action, we are revising the 

proposed chromium emission limit for 

gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces from 

0.00006 to 0.00025 pounds of total 

chromium per ton of glass pulled, based 

on our re-assessment of emissions data 

for newly-rebuilt furnaces (see section 

VI.A.2 of this preamble for a discussion 

of the basis of the revised emission limit 

for chromium compounds). We are also 

requiring that facilities at both major 

and area sources establish the materials 

mix, including the percentages of raw 

minerals and cullet used in gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces during the 

performance test conducted to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

chromium emission limit. The source 

must maintain the percentage of cullet 

in the raw material mixture at or below 

the level established during the most 

recent performance test showing 

compliance with the standard. If the 

gas-fired glass-melting furnace uses 100- 

percent cullet during the performance 

test and is in compliance with the 

chromium emissions limit, then the 

source is not required to monitor cullet 

usage. Other requirements for Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources, 

including startup and shutdown, 

compliance dates, test methods, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting are the same requirements as 

those specified for major source 

facilities in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

NNN. Therefore, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart NN cites 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart NNN, for these requirements. 

C. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards for 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area 

sources? 

The GACT standards for gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces located at Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources 

being promulgated in this action are 

effective on July 29, 2015. The 

compliance date for existing sources is 

July 31, 2017. New sources must comply 

with the all of the standards 

immediately upon the effective date of 

the standard, July 29, 2015, or upon 

initial startup, whichever is later. 

The effective and compliance dates 

finalized in this action are consistent 

with the dates we presented in the 2014 

supplemental proposal. 

D. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA for Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing area sources? 

The requirements for electronic 

reporting of performance test data for 

wool fiberglass manufacturing area 

sources are the same as the 

requirements for the mineral wool 

production source category. See section 

III.G of this preamble for a description 

of the requirements. 

VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental 

and Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected facilities? 

1. Mineral Wool Production Source 

Category 

We estimate that there are eight 

mineral wool facilities that are major 

sources and, therefore, would be subject 

to the final NESHAP provisions. 

2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

Source Category (Major and Area 

Sources) 

We estimate that there are 30 facilities 

in this source category (10 major sources 

and 20 area sources). Based on the 

responses to the CAA section 114 ICR, 

we believe that two of the 10 wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities that 

are major sources would rebuild two 

furnaces before the end of their 

operational lifecycles. We believe that 

all furnaces at area sources can comply 

with the final chromium emission limit 

without rebuilding before the end of 

their operational lifecycles. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

1. Mineral Wool Production Source 

Category 

Emissions of HAP from mineral wool 

production facilities have declined over 

the last decade as a result of federal and 

state rules and the industry’s own 

initiatives. The amendments we are 

finalizing in this action would maintain 

COS, formaldehyde, phenol, and 

methanol emissions at their current low 

levels. 

2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

Source Category (Major and Area 

Sources) 

We expect that these final RTR 

amendments would result in reductions 

of 524 pounds of chromium 

compounds, 490 pounds of which is in 

the hexavalent form. Available 

information indicates that all affected 

facilities will be able to comply with the 

final 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 

continued reductions in PM emissions 

due to these final PM standards, which 

all sources currently are meeting due to 

the use of well-performing PM controls. 

Industry comments, statements, and 

sources in the technical literature 

indicate that as sources of industrial 

oxygen become available in areas 

proximate to wool fiberglass facilities, 

such sources will convert their existing 

furnaces to oxyfuel technology. As 

described in the ‘‘Mechanisms of 

Chromium Emissions From Wool 

Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces,’’ 

June 2015, PM emissions are greatly 

reduced compared to electric furnaces 

and air-gas furnace technology. 

Indirect or secondary air quality 

impacts include impacts that will result 

from the increased electricity usage 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45322 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

associated with the operation of control 

devices. We do not anticipate significant 

secondary impacts from the final 

amendments to the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing MACT. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

1. Mineral Wool Production Source 

Category 

All lines currently in operation can 

meet the emission limits finalized in 

this action without installing new 

control equipment or using different 

input materials. The total annualized 

costs for these final amendments are 

estimated at $48,800 (2013 dollars) for 

additional testing and monitoring. 

2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

Source Category (Major and Area 

Sources) 

The capital costs for each facility were 

estimated based on the ability of each 

facility to meet the final emissions 

limits for PM, chromium compounds, 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. 

The memorandum, ‘‘Cost Impacts of the 

Final 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. 

There are a total of eight gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces located at five 

major source facilities. Compliance 

testing is $10,000 per furnace, resulting 

in total testing costs for glass-melting 

furnaces of $80,000. At this time, there 

are two facilities with a total of two gasfired glass-melting furnaces that do not 

meet the final emissions limit for 

chromium compounds. We anticipate 

that these facilities would opt to reduce 

the operational lifecycle for both of the 

gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. 

Based on the public comments and 

information received in response to 

November 2014 supplemental proposal, 

we revised our cost estimate from 

reducing the operational furnace 

lifecycle (from 10 to 7 years), to a cost 

estimate for rebuilding gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. In this cost estimate, 

we included the cost of transferring 

production to another facility while the 

furnace is being rebuilt. 

For major sources, the estimated 

capital cost of rebuilding the furnace is 

$10.7 million per furnace with a total 

annualized cost of $462,000 per furnace. 

Two major source facilities operate 13 

FA manufacturing lines, and, therefore, 

would incur testing costs (annualized 

cost of $10,400 in 2013 dollars). The 

total annualized costs for the final 

amendments to the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing NESHAP for major 

sources are estimated at $1.01 million 

(2013 dollars). 

Of the 20 area source facilities, five 

facilities operate a total of eight gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces. Under these 

final amendments, none of the area 

source wool fiberglass facilities will 

incur any capital costs to comply with 

the final chromium compounds 

emissions limit. Five area source 

facilities would be subject to new costs 

for compliance testing on gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces, which will total 

$80,000 annually (2013 dollars). 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

1. Mineral Wool Production Source 

Category 

As noted in the November 2014 

supplemental proposal (79 FR 68025), 

we performed an economic impact 

analysis for mineral wool consumers 

and producers nationally. The impacts 

to producers affected by this final rule 

are annualized costs of less than 0.01 

percent of their revenues, using 2013 

year revenue data to be consistent with 

the cost year for our analysis. Prices and 

output for mineral wool products 

should increase by no more than the 

impact of cost to revenues for 

producers; thus, mineral wool prices 

should increase by less than 0.01 

percent. Hence, the overall economic 

impact of this final rule would be 

negligible to the affected industries and 

their consumers. For more information, 

please refer to the ‘‘Economic Impact 

and Small Business Analysis’’ for this 

final rulemaking that is in the docket 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). 

2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

Source Category (Major and Area 

Sources) 

We performed an economic impact 

analysis for wool fiberglass consumers 

and producers nationally, using the 

annual compliance costs estimated for 

both the RTR and area source final 

rules. The impacts to producers affected 

by this final rule are annualized costs of 

less than 0.01 percent of their revenues, 

using 2013 revenue data to be consistent 

with the cost year for our analysis. 

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 final rule would be 

negligible on the affected industries and 

their consumers. For more information, 

please refer to the ‘‘Economic Impact 

and Small Business Analysis’’ for this 

final rulemaking that is in the docket 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). 

E. What are the benefits? 

1. Mineral Wool Production Source 

Category 

The amendments we are finalizing in 

this action will maintain the reductions 

in COS, formaldehyde, phenol, and 

methanol emissions that the industry 

has achieved over time at their currently 

low levels. 

2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

Source Category (Major and Area 

Sources) 

We estimate that this action will 

achieve HAP emissions reduction of 524 

pounds per year of chromium 

compounds from the Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing source category. The 

final standards will result in significant 

reductions in the actual and MACTallowable emissions of chromium 

compounds and will reduce the actual 

and potential cancer risks and noncancer health effects due to emissions of 

chromium compounds from this source 

category. 

In the November 2014 supplemental 

proposal (79 FR 68026), we estimated 

that the proposed emission limits for FA 

and RS manufacturing lines would 

reduce organic HAP emissions by 123 

tons per year. Based on the available 

data, we believe that all FA lines 

currently meet the final emission limits; 

therefore, all of the emission reductions 

of organic HAP presented in the 2014 

supplemental proposal were attributed 

to RS lines. As discussed in section V.H 

of this preamble, we are not establishing 

emission limits for RS manufacturing 

lines in this final action. Consequently, 

the emissions limits for formaldehyde, 

methanol, and phenol finalized in this 

action do not achieve reductions of 

organic HAP; however, the emission 

limits codify the reductions in organic 

HAP from FA lines that have been 

achieved by the industry since the 1999 

NESHAP was promulgated. We have 

issued a CAA section 114 ICR to obtain 

process and emissions data for RS 

manufacturing lines and we will 

evaluate RTR limits for these sources, 

based on the CAA section 114 ICR data, 

at a future date. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

The EPA is making environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying 

and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of its programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and low 

income populations in the United 

States. The EPA has established policies 

regarding the integration of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45323 

24Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. May 2014. Available at http://

www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/

documents/1995_childrens_health_policy_

statement.pdf. 

environmental justice into the agency’s 

rulemaking efforts, including 

recommendations for the consideration 

and conduct of analyses to evaluate 

potential environmental justice 

concerns during the development of a 

rule. 

Following these recommendations, to 

gain a better understanding of the 

source category and near source 

populations, the EPA conducted a 

proximity analysis for mineral wool 

production and wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities prior to 

proposal to identify any 

overrepresentation of minority, low 

income, or indigenous populations. This 

analysis gives an indication of the 

prevalence of sub-populations that may 

be exposed to air pollution from the 

sources. 

The EPA also conducted a risk-based 

socio-economic analysis for populations 

living near wool fiberglass facilities 

titled ‘‘Risk and Technology Review— 

Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for 

Populations Living Near Wool 

Fiberglass Facilities,’’ which is available 

in the docket. The analysis indicated 

that 1,207,000 individuals living within 

50 km of the wool fiberglass facilities 

have a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or 

greater due to emissions from wool 

fiberglass facilities. The specific 

demographic results indicate that the 

percentage of minority population 

potentially impacted by emissions from 

wool fiberglass facilities (i.e., within 50 

km) is greater than the national minority 

percentage (44 percent for the source 

category compared to 28-percent 

nationwide). Furthermore, other 

demographic groups with source 

category percentages greater than the 

corresponding national percentage 

include: The population over 25 

without a high school diploma (18 

percent compared to 15 percent); the 

population from 18 to 64 years of age 

(66 percent compared to 63 percent), 

and the population below the poverty 

level (15 percent compared to 14 

percent). The other demographic 

categories potentially impacted by 

emissions from wool fiberglass facilities 

(i.e., African American, Native 

American, ages less than 18, and ages 65 

and up) are less than or equal to the 

corresponding national percentage. 

The EPA’s integration of 

environmental justice into the agency’s 

rulemaking efforts was also thoroughly 

demonstrated by EPA’s Region 7 

response to emissions data obtained 

through this rulemaking. Region 7 

proactively engaged the local 

community and identified potential 

environmental concerns; conducted air 

monitoring and modeling; and opened 

lines of communication and launched 

several opportunities for the community 

to voice concerns, ask questions, and 

receive additional information. 

Additionally, EPA Headquarters and 

Region 7 worked together to provide 

resources for communities, as well as to 

ensure that feedback received from the 

Region 7 communities was being 

considered in this rulemaking. 

Through our analyses, the EPA has 

determined that these final rules for 40 

CFR part 63, subparts NN, DDD, and 

NNN will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, low 

income, or indigenous populations. 

Additionally, the final changes to the 

NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production 

and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source categories increase the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations by reducing emissions of 

chromium compounds by over 524 

pounds per year and will not cause any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority, low income, or indigenous 

populations. Our demographic analysis 

shows that disproportionately impacted 

minority areas will benefit from the 

lower emissions. Further details 

concerning this analysis are presented 

in the memorandum titled, ‘‘Updated 

Environmental Justice Review: Mineral 

Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing RTR,’’ a copy of which is 

available in the dockets for this action. 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

As part of the health and risk 

assessments, risk-based demographic 

analysis conducted for this action, risks 

to infants and children were assessed. 

This analysis is documented in the 

following memoranda which are 

available in the dockets for this action: 

• ‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Mineral Wool Production and Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories 

in Support of the June 2015 Final Rule’’ 

• ‘‘Risk and Technology Review—Analysis 

of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations 

Living Near Wool Fiberglass Facilities’’ 

The results of the risk-based socioeconomic analysis for populations 

living near wool fiberglass facilities 

indicates that there are 1,207,000 

individuals living within 50 km of the 

wool fiberglass facilities have a cancer 

risk of 1-in-1-million or greater (based 

on actual emissions). The distribution of 

the population with risks above 1-in-1 

million is 24 percent for ages 0 to 17, 

66 percent for ages 18 to 64, and 10 

percent for ages 65 and up. Children 

ages 0 to 17 also constitute 24 percent 

of the population nationwide. 

Therefore, the analysis shows that 

actual emissions from wool fiberglass 

facilities do not have a disproportionate 

impacts on children ages 0 to 17. 

The results of the demographic 

analysis show that the average 

percentage of children 17 years and 

younger in close proximity to mineral 

wool production and wool fiberglass 

manufacturing facilities is similar to the 

percentage of the national population in 

this age group. The difference in the 

absolute number of percentage points of 

the population 17 years and younger 

from the national average indicates a 

7-percent over-representation near 

mineral wool production and wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities. 

Consistent with the EPA’s ‘‘Policy on 

Evaluating Health Risks to Children’’, 

we conducted inhalation and 

multipathway risk assessments for the 

Mineral Wool Production and Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

categories considering risk to infants 

and children.24 Children are exposed to 

chemicals emitted to the atmosphere via 

two primary routes: Either directly via 

inhalation, or indirectly via ingestion or 

dermal contact with various media that 

have been contaminated with the 

emitted chemicals. The EPA considers 

the possibility that children might be 

more sensitive than adults might be to 

toxic chemicals, including chemical 

carcinogens. 

For our multipathway screening 

assessment (i.e., ingestion), we assessed 

risks for adults and various age groups 

of children to determine what age group 

was most at risk for purposes of 

developing the screening/emission 

threshold for each persistent and 

bioaccumulative—HAP (PB–HAP). 

Childrens’ exposures are expected to 

differ from exposures of adults due to 

differences in body weights, ingestion 

rates, dietary preferences, and other 

factors. It is important, therefore, to 

evaluate the contribution of exposures 

during childhood to total lifetime risk 

using appropriate exposure factor 

values, applying age-dependent 

adjustment factors (ADAF) as 

appropriate. The EPA developed a 

health protective exposure scenario 

whereby the receptor, at various 

lifestages, receives ingestion exposure 

via both the farm food chain and the 

fish ingestion pathways. 

Based on the analyses described 

above, the EPA has determined that the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

changes to these rules, which will 

reduce emissions of chromium 

compounds by over 524 pounds per 

year, will lead to reduced risk to 

children and infants. The final 

amendments will also codify the 

reductions in emissions (COS, 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol 

from mineral wool facilities, and 

formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol 

from wool fiberglass facilities) that the 

industries have achieved since the 

NESHAP for the respective source 

categories were promulgated in 1999. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/

lawsregulations/laws-and-executiveorder. 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in these rules have been submitted for 

approval to the OMB under the PRA. 

The ICR document that the EPA 

prepared for the Mineral Wool 

Production source category has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 1799.06. The 

ICR document that the EPA prepared for 

the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

source category has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 1160.10. You can find a 

copy of these ICRs in the dockets for 

these rules, and they are briefly 

summarized here. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

The information requirements in 

these rulemakings are based on the 

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 notifications, reports 

and records are essential in determining 

compliance, and are specifically 

authorized by CAA section 114 (42 

U.S.C. 7414). 

Mineral Wool Production source 

category: 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Existing, new, or reconstructed mineral 

wool production facilities that are major 

sources. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414). 

Estimated number of respondents: 8. 

Frequency of response: Annual. 

Total estimated burden: 123 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $25,150 (per 

year), includes $0 annualized capital or 

operation and maintenance costs. 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category (major sources): 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Existing, new, or reconstructed wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facilities that 

are major sources. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414). 

Estimated number of respondents: 10. 

Frequency of response: Annual. 

Total estimated burden: 156 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $46,142 (per 

year), includes $0 annualized capital or 

operation & maintenance costs. 

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source 

category (area sources): 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired 

glass-melting furnaces at a wool 

fiberglass manufacturing facility that are 

located at a plant site that is an area 

source. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414). 

Estimated number of respondents: 5. 

Frequency of response: Annual. 

Total estimated burden: 78 hours (per 

year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $32,334 (per 

year), includes $0 annualized capital or 

operation and maintenance costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. Five of the eight mineral 

wool production parent companies 

affected in the final 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 these final rules 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 these rulemakings, the costs 

associated with this 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, 

and April 15, 2013. None of the five 

small mineral wool parent companies is 

expected to have an annualized 

compliance cost of greater than 1 

percent of its revenues. All other 

affected parent companies are not small 

businesses according to the SBA small 

business size standard for the affected 

NAICS code (NAICS 327993). Therefore, 

we have determined that the impacts for 

this final rule do not constitute a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Although these final 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 took 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. For more 

information, please refer to the 

economic impact and small business 

analysis that is in the docket. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments, 

or on the private sector. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45325 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. These final 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. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in sections 

IV.A, VI.A, VIII.F, VIII.G of this 

preamble and in the ‘‘Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Mineral Wool 

Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing Source Categories’’ 

memorandum available in the dockets 

for this rulemaking. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted searches for the Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source 

NESHAP through the Enhanced 

National Standards Systems Network 

(NSSN) Database managed by the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI). We also contacted voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) 

organizations and accessed and 

searched their databases. 

As discussed in the November 2014 

supplemental proposal (79 FR 68029), 

under 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDD, we 

conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 

318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A. Under 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart NNN, we conducted searches 

for EPA Methods 5, 318, 320, 29, and 

0061 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. 

Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN, we 

conducted searches for EPA Methods 5 

and 29. These searches did not identify 

any VCS that were potentially 

applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA 

reference methods. The EPA solicited 

comments on VCS and invited the 

public to identify potentially-applicable 

VCS; however, we did not receive 

comments regarding this aspect of 40 

CFR part 63, subparts NN, DDD, or 

NNN. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. As 

explained in the November 2014 

supplemental proposal (79 FR 68029), 

the EPA determined that this final rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations, because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. Further details 

concerning this analysis are presented 

in the memorandum titled, ‘‘Updated 

Environmental Justice Review: Mineral 

Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass 

Manufacturing RTR’’, a copy of which is 

available in the dockets for this action. 

Additionally, the EPA engaged 

meaningfully with communities 

throughout this rulemaking process, to 

help them engage in the rulemaking 

process and to get their feedback on the 

proposed rulemaking. Also, EPA 

worked closely with Region 7, to ensure 

that communities that raised concerns 

by the sectors covered in this 

rulemaking, were being adequately 

engaged throughout this process. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Mineral 

wool production, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wool 

fiberglass manufacturing. 

Dated: June 25, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. Subpart NN is added to part 63 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart NN—National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources 

Sec. 

63.880 Applicability. 

63.881 Definitions. 

63.882 Emission standards. 

63.883 Monitoring requirements. 

63.884 Performance test requirements. 

63.885 Test methods and procedures. 

63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

63.887 Compliance dates. 

63.888 Startups and shutdowns. 

63.889–63.899 [Reserved] 

Table 1 to Subpart NN of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions (40 

CFR part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN 

Subpart NN—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at 

Area Sources 

§ 63.880 Applicability. 

(a) 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 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 subpart A of this 

part that apply and those that do not 

apply to this subpart are specified in 

Table 1 to this subpart. 

(d) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces 

that are not subject to subpart NNN of 

this part are subject to this subpart. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(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: 

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 

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 glassmelting furnace. Cold-top electric glassmelting furnaces as defined in subpart 

NNN of this part are not gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. 

Glass pull rate means the mass of 

molten glass that is produced by a single 

glass-melting furnace or that is used in 

the manufacture of wool fiberglass at a 

single manufacturing line in a specified 

time period. 

Incinerator means an enclosed air 

pollution control device that uses 

controlled flame combustion to convert 

combustible materials to 

noncombustible gases. For the purposes 

of this subpart, the term ‘‘incinerator’’ 

means ‘‘regenerative thermal oxidizer’’. 

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. 

New source means any affected source 

the construction or reconstruction of 

which is commenced after April 15, 

2013. 

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 for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. For each existing, 

new, or reconstructed gas-fired glassmelting furnace, on and after the 

compliance date specified in § 63.887 

whichever date is earlier, you must not 

discharge or cause to be discharged into 

the atmosphere emissions in excess of 

0.00025 lb of chromium compounds per 

ton of glass pulled (0.25 lb per thousand 

tons glass pulled). 

(b) Operating limits. On and after the 

date on which the performance test 

required 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 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 5 

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 Quality 

Improvement Plan consistent with the 

compliance assurance monitoring 

provisions of 40 CFR part 64, 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 5 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 Quality 

Improvement Plan 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 5 percent of the 

total operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(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 Quality 

Improvement Plan 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 5 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period. 

(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 most recent 

successful 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45327 

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 Quality 

Improvement Plan 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 5 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 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 

subpart NNN of this part. 

§ 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. For existing 

sources, 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 

by July 31, 2017. For new sources 

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 by January 

25, 2016 or 180 days after initial startup, 

whichever is later. You must conduct 

the performance test according to the 

procedures in subpart A of this part and 

in this section. 

(b) You must meet all applicable 

performance test requirements 

contained in subpart NNN of this part. 

§ 63.885 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) You must use the following 

methods to determine compliance with 

the applicable emission limits: 

(1) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 for the selection of the 

sampling port location and number of 

sampling ports; 

(2) Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 for volumetric flow rate; 

(3) Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–2) for oxygen and carbon 

dioxide for diluent measurements 

needed to correct the concentration 

measurements to a standard basis; 

(4) Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4 for moisture content of 

the stack gas; 

(5) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8) for the concentration of 

chromium compounds. Each run must 

consist of a minimum sample volume of 

two dry standard cubic meters. 

(6) An alternative method, subject to 

approval by the Administrator. 

(b) Each performance test must 

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. 

You must meet all applicable 

notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements contained in 

subpart NNN of this part. 

§ 63.887 Compliance dates. 

(a) Compliance dates. The owner or 

operator subject to the provisions of this 

subpart must be in compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart by no later 

than: 

(1) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section, the compliance date for 

an owner or operator of an existing 

source subject to the provisions in this 

subpart would be July 31, 2017. 

(2) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section, the compliance date for 

new and reconstructed sources is upon 

initial startup of a new gas-fired glassmelting furnace or on July 29, 2015, 

whichever is later. 

(3) The compliance date for the 

provisions related to the electronic 

reporting provisions of § 63.886 is on 

July 29, 2015. 

(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 

submit a request for an extension 

according to the procedures in 

§ 63.6(i)(3). 

§ 63.888 Startups and shutdowns. 

You must meet all applicable startup 

and shutdown provisions contained in 

subpart NNN of this part. 

§§ 63.889–63.899 [Reserved] 

TABLE 1 TO 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(a)(1)–(5) ............ Applicability ..................................................... Yes 

§ 63.1(a)(6) .................. ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(a)(10)–(12) ........ ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.1(b)(1) .................. Initial Applicability Determination .................... Yes 

§ 63.1(b)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.1(c)(1)–(2) ............ ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(c)(5)–(e) ............ ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.2 ........................... Definitions ....................................................... Yes ............................. Additional definitions in § 63.881. 

§ 63.3 ........................... Units and Abbreviations .................................. Yes 

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(2) ............ Prohibited Activities ......................................... Yes 

§ 63.4(a)(3)–(5) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.4(b)–(c) ................ ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.5(a)–(b)(2) ............ Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ....... Yes 

§ 63.5(b)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.5(b)(5) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(b)(6) .................. ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.5(c) ....................... ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(d) ....................... Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.Yes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART NN—Continued 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart NN Explanation 

§ 63.5(e) ....................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction ....... Yes 

§ 63.5(f) ........................ Approval of Construction/Reconstruction 

Based on State Review.

Yes 

§ 63.6(a)–(d) ................ Compliance with Standards and Maintenance 

Requirements.

Yes 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............... General Duty to Minimize Emissions .............. No ............................... See § 63.882 for general duty requirements. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .............. Requirement to Correct Malfunctions As 

Soon As Possible.

No 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............. ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.6(e)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(e)(3) .................. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) 

Plan.

No ............................... Startups and shutdowns addressed in 

§ 63.888. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) ................... SSM Exemption .............................................. No 

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............. Methods for Determining Compliance ............ Yes 

§ 63.6(g) ....................... Use of an Alternative Nonopacity Emission ... Yes 

§ 63.6(h)(1) .................. SSM Exemption .............................................. No 

§ 63.6(h)(2)–(j) ............. ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.7(a)–(d) ................ ......................................................................... Yes ............................. § 63.884 has specific requirements. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) .................. Performance Testing ....................................... No ............................... See § 63.882. 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.7(f) ........................ Alternative Test Method .................................. Yes 

§ 63.7(g)(1) .................. Data Analysis .................................................. Yes 

§ 63.7(g)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.7(g)(3) .................. ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.7(h) ....................... Waiver of Performance Test ........................... Yes 

§ 63.8(a)–(b) ................ Monitoring Requirements ................................ Yes 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ............... General Duty to Minimize Emissions and 

CMS Operation.

No ............................... See § 63.882(b) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .............. ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............. Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS No 

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) ........ ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.8(d)(3) .................. Written Procedures for CMS ........................... Yes, except for last 

sentence, which refers to SSM plan. 

SSM plans are not 

required 

§ 63.8(e)–(g) ................ ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.9(a) ....................... Notification Requirements ............................... Yes 

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(2) ............ Initial Notifications ........................................... Yes 

§ 63.9(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.9(b)(4)–(5) ............ ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.9(c)–(j) .................. ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.10(a) ..................... Recordkeeping and Reporting-Requirements Yes 

§ 63.10(b)(1) ................ General Recordkeeping Requirements .......... 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 § 63.886 for recordkeeping of occurrence 

and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions taken during 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)–(xiv) .. Other CMS Requirements .............................. Yes 

§ 63.10(b)(3) ................ Recordkeeping Requirement for Applicability 

Determinations.

Yes 

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

Yes 

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

CMS—Identifying Exceedances and Excess Emissions.

Yes 

§ 63.10(c)(9) ................ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ...... ......................................................................... No ............................... See § 63.886 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. 

§ 63.10(c)(12)–(14) ...... ......................................................................... Yes 

§ 63.10(c)(15) .............. Use of SSM Plan ............................................ No 

§ 63.10(d)(1)–(4) .......... General Reporting Requirements ................... Yes 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................ SSM Reports ................................................... No ............................... See § 63.886(c)(2) for reporting of malfunctions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45329 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART NN—Continued 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart NN Explanation 

§ 63.10(e)–(f) ............... Additional CMS Reports Excess Emission/ 

CMS Performance Reports COMS Data 

Reports Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver.

Yes 

§ 63.11(a)–(b) .............. Control Device Requirements Applicability 

Flares.

No ............................... Flares will not be used to comply with the 

emissions limits. 

§ 63.11(c) ..................... Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring 

Equipment for Leaks.

Yes 

§ 63.11(d) ..................... Alternative Work Practice Standard ................ Yes 

§ 63.11(e) ..................... Alternative Work Practice Requirements ........ Yes 

§ 63.12 ......................... State Authority and Delegations ..................... Yes 

§ 63.13 ......................... Addresses ....................................................... Yes 

§ 63.14 ......................... Incorporation by Reference ............................ Yes 

§ 63.15 ......................... Information Availability/Confidentiality ............ Yes 

§ 63.16 ......................... Performance Track Provisions ........................ Yes 

Subpart DDD—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Mineral Wool Production 

■ 3. Section 63.1178 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1178 For cupolas, what standards 

must I meet? 

(a) You must control emissions from 

each cupola as specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart. 

(b) * * * 

(3) Additionally, on or after the 

applicable compliance date for each 

new or reconstructed cupola, you must 

either: 

(i) Maintain the operating temperature 

of the incinerator so that the average 

operating temperature for each threehour block period never falls below the 

average temperature established during 

the performance test, or 

(ii) Maintain the percent excess 

oxygen in the cupola at or above the 

level established during the 

performance test. You must determine 

the percent excess oxygen using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

Percent excess oxygen = Percentage of excess 

oxygen present above the stoichiometric 

balance of 1.00, (%). 

1.00 = Ratio of oxygen in a cupola 

combustion chamber divided by the 

stoichiometric quantity of oxygen 

required to obtain complete combustion 

of fuel. 

Oxygen available = Quantity of oxygen 

introduced into the cupola combustion 

zone. 

Fuel demand for oxygen = Required quantity 

of oxygen for stoichiometric combustion 

of the quantity of fuel present. 

■ 4. Section 63.1179 is amended by 

revising the section heading, paragraph 

(a), and paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.1179 For curing ovens or combined 

collection/curing operations, what 

standards must I meet? 

(a) You must control emissions from 

each curing oven or combined 

collection/curing operations as specified 

in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(b) You must meet the following 

operating limits for each curing oven or 

combined collection/curing operation: 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.1180 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1180 When must I meet these 

standards? 

(a) Cupolas and curing ovens or 

combined collection/curing operations. 

You must comply with the emissions 

limits specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart no later than the dates specified 

in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(b) 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. 

■ 6. Section 63.1182 is amended by 

revising the section heading, the 

introductory text, and paragraphs (a) 

and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1182 How do I comply with the carbon 

monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen 

fluoride, and hydrogen chloride standards 

for existing, new, and reconstructed 

cupolas? 

To comply with the carbon monoxide, 

carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and 

hydrogen chloride standards, you must 

meet the following: 

(a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a device that continuously 

measures the operating temperature in 

the firebox of each thermal incinerator. 

(b) Conduct a performance test as 

specified in § 63.1188 that shows 

compliance with the carbon monoxide, 

carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and 

hydrogen chloride emissions limits 

specified in Table 2 to this subpart, 

while the device for measuring 

incinerator operating temperature is 

installed, operational, and properly 

calibrated. Establish the average 

operating temperature based on the 

performance test as specified in 

§ 63.1185(a). 

* * * * * 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER29JY15.000</GPH>
45330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 7. Section 63.1183 is amended by 

revising the section heading, the 

introductory text, and paragraphs (b) 

and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1183 How do I comply with the 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol 

standards for existing, new, and 

reconstructed combined collection/curing 

operations? 

To comply with the formaldehyde, 

phenol, and methanol standards, you 

must meet all of the following: 

* * * * * 

(b) Conduct a performance test as 

specified in § 63.1188 while 

manufacturing the product that requires 

a binder formulation made with the 

resin containing the highest freeformaldehyde content specification 

range. Show compliance with the 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol 

emissions limits, specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart, while the device for 

measuring the control device operating 

parameter is installed, operational, and 

properly calibrated. Establish the 

average operating parameter based on 

the performance test as specified in 

§ 63.1185(a). 

* * * * * 

(d) Following the performance test, 

monitor and record the freeformaldehyde content of each resin lot 

and the formulation of each batch of 

binder used, including the 

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol 

content. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 63.1188 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and 

(f) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1188 What performance test 

requirements must I meet? 

* * * * * 

(b) Conduct a performance test, 

consisting of three test runs, for each 

cupola and curing oven or combined 

collection/curing operation subject to 

this subpart at the maximum production 

rate to demonstrate compliance with 

each of the applicable emissions limits 

specified in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(c) Following the initial performance 

or compliance test to be conducted 

within 180 days of the effective date of 

this rule, you must conduct a 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with each of the applicable 

emissions limits specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart, at least once every 5 years. 

(d) To demonstrate compliance with 

the applicable emission limits specified 

in Table 2 to this subpart, measure 

emissions of PM, carbon monoxide, 

carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and 

hydrogen chloride from each existing, 

new, or reconstructed cupola. 

(e) To demonstrate compliance with 

the applicable emission limits specified 

in Table 2 to this subpart, measure 

emissions of formaldehyde, phenol, and 

methanol from each existing, new, or 

reconstructed curing oven or combined 

collection/curing operation. 

(f) To demonstrate compliance with 

the applicable emission limits specified 

in Table 2 to this subpart, measure 

emissions at the outlet of the control 

device for PM, carbon monoxide, 

carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, 

hydrogen chloride, formaldehyde, 

phenol, and methanol. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.1189 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g) and adding 

paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1189 What test methods do I use? 

* * * * * 

(g) Method 318 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A to this part for the 

concentration of formaldehyde, phenol, 

methanol, and carbonyl sulfide. 

* * * * * 

(i) Method 26A or 320 at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A to this part for the 

concentration of hydrogen fluoride and 

hydrogen chloride. 

■ 10. Section 63.1190 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

and the definition of ‘‘MW,’’ and by 

removing paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1190 How do I determine compliance? 

* * * * * 

(b) Using the results from the 

performance tests, you must use the 

following equation to determine 

compliance with the carbon monoxide, 

carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, 

hydrogen chloride, formaldehyde, 

phenol, and methanol numerical 

emissions limits as specified in Table 2 

to this subpart: 

* * * * * 

MW = Molecular weight of measured 

pollutant, g/g-mole: Carbon monoxide = 

28.01, carbonyl sulfide = 60.07, 

hydrogen fluoride = 20.01, hydrogen 

chloride = 36.46, Formaldehyde = 30.03, 

Phenol = 94.11, Methanol = 32.04. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.1191 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1191 What notifications must I 

submit? 

You must submit written or electronic 

notifications to the Administrator as 

required by § 63.9(b) through (h). 

Electronic notifications are encouraged 

when possible. These notifications 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 63.1192 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1192 What recordkeeping 

requirements must I meet? 

* * * * * 

(d) Records must be maintained in a 

form suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to § 63.10 

of the General Provisions that are 

referenced in Table 1 to this subpart. 

Electronic recordkeeping is encouraged. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 63.1193 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a), removing and 

reserving paragraph (b), and adding a 

new paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1193 What reports must I submit? 

* * * * * 

(a) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 63.2) required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of 

the performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

(a)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(1) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

index.html), you must submit the results 

of the performance test to the EPA via 

the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (http:// 

cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in a file format generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you 

may submit performance test data in an 

electronic file format consistent with the 

extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, once the XML schema is available. 

If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI), you must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, including information claimed to 

be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, 

or other commonly used electronic 

storage media to the EPA. The electronic 

media must be clearly marked as CBI 

and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE 

CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45331 

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same ERT or alternate file 

with the CBI omitted must be submitted 

to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, you must submit the results of 

the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. 

(b) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(g) All reports required by this subpart 

not subject to the requirements in 

paragraph (a) of this section must be 

sent to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If 

acceptable to both the Administrator 

and the owner or operator of a source, 

these reports may be submitted on 

electronic media. The Administrator 

retains the right to require submittal of 

reports subject to paragraph (a) of this 

section in paper format. 

■ 14. Section 63.1196 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions for ‘‘Closed-top cupola’’, 

‘‘Combined collection/curing 

operations’’, ‘‘Open-top cupola’’, and 

‘‘Slag’’; and 

■ b. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Incinerator’’ and ‘‘New Source’’. 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1196 What definitions should I be 

aware of? 

* * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * 

Incinerator means an enclosed air 

pollution control device that uses 

controlled flame combustion to convert 

combustible materials to 

noncombustible gases. For the purposes 

of this subpart, the term ‘‘incinerator’’ 

means ‘‘regenerative thermal oxidizer’’. 

* * * * * 

New Source means any affected 

source that commences construction or 

reconstruction after May 8, 1997 for 

purposes of determining the 

applicability of the emissions limits in 

Rows 1–4 of Table 2. For all other 

emission limits new source means any 

affected source that commences 

construction or reconstruction after 

November 25, 2011. 

* * * * * 

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. 

* * * * * 

Slag means the by-product materials 

separated from metals during smelting 

and refining of raw ore. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Section 63.1197 is 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 during 

times when emissions are being, or are 

otherwise required to be, routed to such 

items of equipment. 

(c) Startup begins when fuels are 

ignited in the cupola. Startup ends 

when the cupola produces molten 

material. 

(d) Shutdown begins when the cupola 

has reached the end of the melting 

campaign and is empty. No molten 

material continues to flow from the 

cupola during shutdown. 

(e) During periods of startups and 

shutdowns you must operate your 

cupola according to one of the following 

methods: 

(1) You must keep records showing 

that your emissions were controlled 

using air pollution control devices 

operated at the parameters established 

by the most recent performance test that 

showed compliance with the standard; 

or 

(2) You must keep records showing 

the following: 

(i) You used only clean fuels during 

startup and shutdown; and 

(ii) You operate the cupola during 

startup and shutdown with three 

percent oxygen over the fuel demand for 

oxygen. 

■ 16. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 

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 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? Explanation 

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(6) ............ General Applicability ....................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(a)(10)–(12) ........ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(b)(1) .................. Initial Applicability Determination .................... Yes.

§ 63.1(b)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(1)–(2) ............ Applicability After Standard Established ......... Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(c)(5)–(e) ............ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.2 ........................... Definitions ....................................................... Yes.

§ 63.3 ........................... Units and Abbreviations .................................. Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(2) ............ Prohibited Activities ......................................... Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(3)–(5) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.4(b)–(c) ................ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(a)(1)–(b)(2) ....... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ....... Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(5) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(b)(6) .................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(c) ....................... ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(d)–(f) ................. ......................................................................... Yes.

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

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............... General Duty to Minimize Emissions .............. No ............................... See § 63.1180(d) for general duty requirement. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART DDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART DDD—Continued 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? Explanation 

§ 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.

§ 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(f)(2)–(g) ............. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.6(h)(1) .................. SSM Exemption .............................................. No.

§ 63.6(h)(2)–(j) ............. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.7(a)–(d) ................ Performance Testing Requirements ............... Yes.

§ 63.7(e)(1) .................. Conduct of Performance Tests ....................... No ............................... See § 63.1180. 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(f) ............. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.7(g)(1) .................. Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Yes.

§ 63.7(g)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.7(g)(3)–(h) ............ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(a)–(b) ................ Monitoring Requirements ................................ Yes.

§ 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)(ii) .............. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............. Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS No.

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) ........ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(d)(3) .................. Written Procedures for CMS ........................... Yes, except for last 

sentence, which refers to SSM plan. 

SSM plans are not 

required..

§ 63.8(e)–(g) ................ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(a) ....................... Applicability and General Information ............. Yes.

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(2) ............ Initial Notifications ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.9(b)(4)–(b)(5) ....... ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(c)–(j) .................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(a) ..................... Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(1) ................ General Recordkeeping Requirements .......... 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 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)–(xiv) .. Other CMS Requirements .............................. Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(3) ................ Recordkeeping Requirement for Applicability 

Determinations.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

CMS—Identifying Exceedances and Excess Emissions.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(9) ................ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ...... ......................................................................... No ............................... See § 63.1192 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. 

§ 63.10(c)(12)–(14) ...... ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(15) .............. Use of SSM Plan ............................................ No.

§ 63.10(d)(1)–(4) .......... General Reporting Requirements ................... Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................ SSM Reports ................................................... No ............................... See § 63.1193(f) for reporting of malfunctions. 

§ 63.10(e)–(f) ............... Additional CMS Reports Excess Emission/ 

CMS Performance Reports COMS Data 

Reports Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver.

Yes.

§ 63.11(a)–(b) .............. Control Device Requirements Applicability 

Flares.

No ............................... Flares will not be used to comply with the 

emissions limits. 

§ 63.11(c) ..................... Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring 

Equipment for Leaks.

Yes.

§ 63.11(d) ..................... Alternative Work Practice Standard ................ Yes.

§ 63.11(e) ..................... ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.12 ......................... State Authority and Delegations ..................... Yes.

§ 63.13 ......................... Addresses ....................................................... Yes.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45333 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART DDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART DDD—Continued 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? Explanation 

§ 63.14 ......................... Incorporation by Reference ............................ Yes.

§ 63.15 ......................... Information Availability/Confidentiality ............ Yes.

§ 63.16 ......................... Performance Track Provisions ........................ Yes.

■ 17. Subpart DDD is amended by 

adding Table 2 to read as follows: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DDD OF PART 63—EMISSIONS LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE DATES

If your source is a: And you commenced construction: Your emission limits are: 1 And you must comply 

by: 2

1. Cupola ............................................. On or before May 8, 1997 ................... 0.10 lb PM per ton of melt .................. June 2, 2002. 

2. Cupola ............................................. After May 8, 1997 ................................ 0.10 lb PM per ton of melt .................. June 1, 1999. 

3. Cupola ............................................. On or before May 8, 1997 ................... a. 0.10 lb carbon monoxide (CO) per 

ton of melt,3 or 

b. Reduction of uncontrolled CO by at 

least 99 percent 3.

June 2, 2002. 

4. Cupola ............................................. After May 8, 1997 but on or before 

November 25, 2011.

a. 0.10 lb CO per ton of melt,3 or 

b. Reduction of uncontrolled CO by at 

least 99 percent.3

June 1, 1999. 

5. Closed-top cupola ............................ On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 3.4 lb of carbonyl sulfide (COS) per 

ton melt.

July 30, 2018. 

6. Closed-top cupola ............................ After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.062 lb of COS per ton melt .............. July 29, 2015.4

7. Open-top cupola .............................. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 6.8 lb of COS per ton melt .................. July 30, 2018. 

8. Open-top cupola .............................. After November 25, 2011 .................... 3.2 lb of COS per ton melt .................. July 29, 2015.4

9. Cupola using slag as a raw material On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.16 lb of hydrogen fluoride (HF) per 

ton melt.

0.44 lb of hydrogen chloride (HCl) per 

ton melt. 

July 30, 2018. 

10. Cupola using slag as a raw material.After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.015 lb of HF per ton melt .................

0.012 lb of HCl per ton melt. 

July 29, 2015.4

11. Cupola not using slag as a raw 

material.

On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.13 lb of HF per ton melt ...................

0.43 lb of HCl per ton melt. 

July 30, 2018. 

12. Cupola not using slag as a raw 

material.

After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.018 lb of HF per ton melt .................

0.015 lb of HCl per ton melt. 

July 29, 2015.4

17. Curing oven ................................... On or before May 8, 1997 ................... a. 0.06 lb of formaldehyde per ton of 

melt,3 or 

b. Reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde by at least 80 percent.3

June 2, 2002. 

18. Curing oven ................................... After May 8, 1997 but before November 25, 2011.a. 0.06 lb of formaldehyde per ton of 

melt,3 or 

b. Reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde by at least 80 percent.3

June 1, 1999. 

19. Combined drum collection/curing 

operation.

On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.17 lb of formaldehyde per ton of 

melt.

0.28 lb of methanol per ton melt. 

0.85 lb of phenol per ton melt. 

July 30, 2018. 

20. Combined drum collection/curing 

operation.

After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.17 lb of formaldehyde per ton of 

melt.

0.28 lb of methanol per ton melt. 

0.85 lb of phenol per ton melt. 

July 29, 2015.4

21. Combined horizontal collection/ 

curing operation.

On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.63 lb of formaldehyde per ton of 

melt.

0.049 lb of methanol per ton melt. 

0.12 lb of phenol per ton melt. 

July 30, 2018. 

22. Combined horizontal collection/ 

curing operation.

After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.63 lb of formaldehyde per ton of 

melt.

0.049 lb of methanol per ton melt. 

0.12 lb of phenol per ton melt. 

July 29, 2015.4

23. Combined vertical collection/curing 

operation.

On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 2.4 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt ....

0.92 lb of methanol per ton melt. 

0.71 lb of phenol per ton melt. 

July 30, 2018. 

24. Combined vertical collection/curing 

operation.

After November 25, 2011 .................... 2.4 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt ....

0.92 lb of methanol per ton melt. 

0.71 lb of phenol per ton melt. 

July 29, 2015.4

1The numeric emissions limits do not apply during startup and shutdown. 

2Existing sources must demonstrate compliance by the compliance dates specified in this table. New sources have 180 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate compliance. 3This emissions limit does not apply after July 30, 2018. 

4Or upon initial startup, whichever is later. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45334 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart NNN—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 

■ 18. 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Section 63.1381 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘Gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace’’; and 

■ b. Revising the definitions of 

‘‘Incinerator’’ and ‘‘New source’’. 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 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 glassmelting furnace. Cold-top electric 

furnaces as defined in this subpart are 

not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. 

* * * * * 

Incinerator means an enclosed air 

pollution control device that uses 

controlled flame combustion to convert 

combustible materials to 

noncombustible gases. For the purposes 

of this subpart, the term ‘‘incinerator’’ 

means ‘‘regenerative thermal oxidizer’’. 

* * * * * 

New source means any affected source 

that commences construction or 

reconstruction after March 31, 1997 for 

purposes of determining the 

applicability of the emission limits in 

rows 1, 2 and 7 through 11 in Table 2. 

New source means any affected source 

that commences construction or 

reconstruction after November 25, 2011 

for purposes of determining the 

applicability of all other emissions 

limits. 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Section 63.1382 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a), redesignating 

paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and 

adding new pargraph (b) and paragraph 

(c)(11) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1382 Emission standards. 

(a) You must control emissions from 

each glass-melting furnace, rotary spin 

manufacturing line, and flame 

attenuation manufacturing line as 

specified in Table 2 to this subpart. 

(b) On or after July 29, 2015 to reduce 

emissions of hydrogen chloride and 

hydrogen fluoride from each existing, 

new, or reconstructed glass-melting 

furnace, you must either: 

(1) Require cullet providers to provide 

records of their inspections showing 

that no glass from industrial (also 

known as continuous strand, or textile) 

fiberglass, cathode ray tubes (CRT), 

computer monitors that include CRT, 

and glass from microwave ovens, 

televisions or other electronics is 

included in the cullet; or 

(2) Sample your raw materials and 

maintain records of your sampling 

showing that the cullet is free of glass 

from industrial fiberglass, cathode ray 

tubes, computer monitors that include 

cathode ray tubes, and glass from 

microwave ovens, televisions or other 

electronics. 

(c) * * * 

(11) The owner or operator must 

maintain the percentage of cullet in the 

materials mix for each gas-fired glassmelting furnace at or below the level 

established during the performance test 

as specified in § 63.1384(a)(4). 

■ 21. Section 63.1383 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (f) and (m) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1383 Monitoring requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) If you use a control device to 

control HAP emissions from a glassmelting furnace, RS manufacturing line, 

or FA manufacturing line, you must 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

a monitoring device that continuously 

measures an appropriate parameter for 

the control device. You must establish 

the value of that parameter during the 

performance test conducted to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable emission limit as specified in 

Table 2 to this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(m) For all control device and process 

operating parameters measured during 

the initial performance tests, including 

the materials mix used in the test, you 

may change the limits established 

during the initial performance tests if 

you conduct additional performance 

testing to verify that, at the new control 

device or process parameter levels, you 

comply with the applicable emission 

limits specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart. You must conduct all 

additional performance tests according 

to the procedures in this part 63, 

subpart A and in § 63.1384. 

■ 22. Section 63.1384 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (c) 

introductory text, and the definitions of 

‘‘E’’, ‘‘C’’, and ‘‘MW’’, and adding 

paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1384 Performance test requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(4) The owner or operator shall 

conduct a performance test for each 

existing and new gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace. During the performance test of 

each gas-fired glass-melting furnace, the 

owner or operator must measure and 

record the materials mix, including the 

percentages of raw materials and cullet, 

melted in the furnace during the 

performance test. 

* * * * * 

(c) To determine compliance with the 

emission limits specified in Table 2 to 

this subpart, for formaldehyde for RS 

manufacturing lines; formaldehyde, 

phenol, and methanol for FA 

manufacturing lines; and chromium 

compounds for gas-fired glass-melting 

furnaces, use the following equation: 

* * * * * 

E = Emission rate of formaldehyde, phenol, 

methanol, chromium compounds, kg/Mg 

(lb/ton) of glass pulled; 

C = Measured volume fraction of 

formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, 

chromium compounds, ppm; 

MW = Molecular weight of formaldehyde, 

30.03 g/g-mol; molecular weight of 

phenol, 94.11 g/g-mol; molecular weight 

of methanol, 32.04 g/g-mol; molecular 

weight of chromium compounds tested 

in g/g-mol. 

* * * * * 

(d) Following the initial performance 

or compliance test conducted to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

chromium compounds emissions limit 

specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you 

must conduct an annual performance 

test for chromium compounds 

emissions from each gas-fired glassmelting furnace (no later than 12 

calendar months following the previous 

compliance test). 

(e) Following the initial performance 

or compliance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM, formaldehyde, 

phenol, and methanol emissions limits 

specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you 

must conduct a performance test to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45335 

demonstrate compliance with each of 

the applicable PM, formaldehyde, 

phenol, and methanol emissions limits 

in § 63.1382 at least once every five 

years. 

■ 23. Section 63.1385 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6), 

redesignating paragraph (a)(10) as 

paragraph (a)(13), and adding 

paragraphs (a)(10) through (12) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1385 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) * * * 

(5) Method 5 or Method 29 (40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–3) for the 

concentration of total PM. When using 

Method 5, each run must consist of a 

minimum sample volume of 2 dry 

standard cubic meters (dscm). When 

using Method 29, each run must consist 

of a minimum sample volume of 3 

dscm. When measuring PM 

concentration using either Method 5 or 

29, the probe and filter holder heating 

system must be set to provide a gas 

temperature no greater than 120±14°C 

(248±25 °F). 

(6) For measuring the concentration of 

formaldehyde, use one of the following 

test methods: 

(i) Method 318 (appendix A of this 

part). Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of 10 spectra. 

(ii) Method 316 (appendix A of this 

part). Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of 2 dry standard cubic 

meters (dscm) of sample volume. 

* * * * * 

(10) For measuring the concentration 

of phenol, use Method 318 (appendix A 

of this part). Each test run must consist 

of a minimum of 10 spectra. 

(11) For measuring the concentration 

of methanol, use one of the following 

test methods: 

(i) Method 318 (appendix A of this 

part). Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of 10 spectra. 

(ii) Method 308 (appendix A of this 

part). Each test run must consist of a 

minimum of 2 hours. 

(12) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8) for the concentration of 

chromium compounds. Each test run 

must consist of a minimum sample 

volume of 3 dscm. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Section 63.1386 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (4), 

removing and reserving paragraph (b), 

revising paragraph (c), and adding 

paragraphs (d)(2)(x) and (xi), (f) and (g) 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Notification that a source is subject 

to the standard, where the initial startup 

is before November 25, 2011. 

(3) Notification that a source is subject 

to the standard, where the source is new 

or has been reconstructed the initial 

startup is after November 25, 2011, and 

for which an application for approval of 

construction or reconstruction is not 

required; 

(4) Notification of intention to 

construct a new affected source or 

reconstruct an affected source; of the 

date construction or reconstruction 

commenced; of the anticipated date of 

startup; of the actual date of startup, 

where the initial startup of a new or 

reconstructed source occurs after 

November 25, 2011, and for which an 

application for approval or construction 

or reconstruction is required (See 

§ 63.9(b)(4) and (5)); 

* * * * * 

(c) Records and reports for a failure to 

meet a standard. (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 § 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. 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(x) Records of your cullet sampling or 

records of inspections from cullet 

providers. 

(xi) For each gas-fired glass-melting 

furnace that uses cullet, records of the 

daily average cullet percentage, and the 

30-day rolling average percent cullet in 

the materials mix charged to the 

furnace. The initial daily average should 

be recorded on the compliance date and 

the first 30-day rolling average should 

be calculated 30 days after the 

compliance date. 

* * * * * 

(f) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 63.2) required in this 

subpart, you must submit the results of 

the performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

(f)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(1) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html), you must submit the results 

of the performance test to the EPA via 

the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (http://

cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in a file format generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you 

may submit performance test data in an 

electronic file format consistent with the 

extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, once the XML schema is available. 

If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI), you must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, including information claimed to 

be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive 

or other commonly used electronic 

storage media to the EPA. The electronic 

media must be clearly marked as CBI 

and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE 

CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, C404–02, 

4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. 

The same ERT or alternate file with the 

CBI omitted must be submitted to the 

EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described 

earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, you must submit the results of 

the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. 

(g) All reports required by this subpart 

not subject to the requirements in 

paragraph (f) of this section must be sent 

to the Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. If acceptable to 

both the Administrator and the owner or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

operator of a source, these reports may 

be submitted on electronic media. The 

Administrator retains the right to 

require submittal of reports subject to 

paragraph (f) of this section in paper 

format. 

■ 25. Section 63.1387 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1387 Compliance dates. 

(a) Compliance dates. You must 

comply with the emissions limits by the 

dates specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

(c) 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. 

■ 26. Section 63.1389 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1389 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. For 

cold-top electric furnaces, startup ends 

when the batch cover is established and 

the temperature of the glass batch-cover 

surface is below 300 °F. 

(d) Shutdown begins when the heat 

sources to the glass-melting 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) During periods of startup and 

shutdown in a cold-top furnace that is 

routed to a baghouse during normal 

operation, you must establish the batch 

cover and operate your furnace 

according to the following requirements 

during startup and shutdown: 

(1) You must keep records showing 

that you used only natural gas or other 

clean fuels to heat each furnace; and 

(2) Except after batch cover is 

established, you must keep records 

showing that you used only cullet as a 

raw material during the startup of each 

cold-top furnace; and 

(3) Once a batch cover is established 

and a control device can be safely 

operated, you must keep records 

showing that furnace emissions were 

controlled using air pollution control 

devices operated at the parameters 

established by the most recent 

performance test that showed 

compliance with the standard. 

(4) During periods of shutdown in a 

cold-top furnace, until the conditions 

above the glass reach a point at which 

the control device may be damaged if it 

continues to operate, you must keep 

records showing furnace emissions were 

controlled using air pollution control 

devices operated at the parameters 

established by the most recent 

performance test that showed 

compliance with the standard. 

(f) During both periods of startups and 

shutdowns for all furnace types other 

than cold-top furnaces, you must 

operate each furnace according to the 

following requirements: 

(1) You must record the type of fuel 

used to heat the furnace during startup 

and shutdown to demonstrate that you 

used only natural gas or other clean 

fuels; and 

(2) You must keep records showing 

that furnace emissions were controlled 

using air pollution control devices 

operated at the parameters established 

by the most recent performance test that 

showed compliance with the standard. 

■ 27. Table 1 to subpart NNN of part 63 

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 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN? Explanation 

§ 63.1(a)(1)–(5) ............ Applicability ..................................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(a)(6) .................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(a)(10)–(12) ........ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(b)(1) .................. Initial Applicability Determination .................... Yes.

§ 63.1(b)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(1)–(2) ............ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(c)(5)–(e) ............ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.2 ........................... Definitions ....................................................... Yes.

§ 63.3 ........................... Units and Abbreviations .................................. Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(1)–(2) ............ Prohibited Activities ......................................... Yes.

§ 63.4(a)(3)–(5) ............ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.4(b)–(c) ................ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(a)–(b)(2) ............ Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ....... Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(3)–(4) ............ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(b)(5) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(b)(6) .................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.5(c) ....................... ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(d) ....................... Application for Approval of Construction or 

Reconstruction.

Yes.

§ 63.5(e) ....................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction ....... Yes.

§ 63.5(f) ........................ Approval of Construction/Reconstruction 

Based on State Review.

Yes.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45337 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART NNN—Continued 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN? Explanation 

§ 63.6(a)–(d) ................ Compliance with Standards and Maintenance 

Requirements.

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 (SSM) Plan .. No ............................... Startups and shutdowns addressed in 

§ 63.1388. 

§ 63.6(f)(1) ................... SSM Exemption .............................................. No.

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............. Methods for Determining Compliance ............ Yes.

§ 63.6(g) ....................... Use of an Alternative Nonopacity Emission 

Standard.

Yes.

§ 63.6(h)(1) .................. SSM Exemption .............................................. No.

§ 63.6(h)(2)–(j) ............. ......................................................................... Yes.

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

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

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4) ....... ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.7(f) ........................ Alternative Test Method .................................. Yes.

§ 63.7(g)(1) .................. Data Analysis .................................................. Yes.

§ 63.7(g)(2) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.7(g)(3) .................. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.7(h) ....................... Waiver of Performance Test ........................... Yes.

§ 63.8(a)–(b) ................ Monitoring Requirements ................................ 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)(ii) .............. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............. Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS No.

§ 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ............ Quality Control Program ................................. Yes.

§ 63.8(d)(3) .................. Written Procedures for CMS ........................... Yes, except for last 

sentence, which refers to SSM plan. 

SSM plans are not 

required.

§ 63.8(e)–(g) ................ ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(a) ....................... Notification Requirements ............................... Yes.

§ 63.9(b)(1)–(2) ............ Initial Notifications ........................................... Yes.

§ 63.9(b)(3) .................. ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.9(b)(4)–(j) ............. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(a) ..................... Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(1) ................ General Recordkeeping Requirements .......... 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)–(xiv) .. Other CMS Requirements .............................. Yes.

§ 63.10(b)(3) ................ Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability 

Determinations.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

Sources with CMS.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) .......... Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for 

CMS—Identifying Exceedances and Excess Emissions.

Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(9) ................ ......................................................................... No ............................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ...... ......................................................................... No ............................... See § 63.1386 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. 

§ 63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) .. ......................................................................... Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(15) .............. Use of SSM Plan ............................................ No.

§ 63.10(d)(1)–(4) .......... General Reporting Requirements ................... Yes.

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................ SSM Reports ................................................... No ............................... See § 63.1386(c)(iii) for reporting of malfunctions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

45338 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART NNN—Continued 

General provisions 

citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN? Explanation 

§ 63.10(e)–(f) ............... Additional CMS Reports Excess Emission/

CMS Performance Reports COMS Data 

Reports Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver.

Yes.

§ 63.11(a)–(b) .............. Control Device Requirements Applicability 

Flares.

No ............................... Flares will not be used to comply with the 

emissions limits. 

§ 63.11(c) ..................... Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring 

Equipment for Leaks.

Yes.

§ 63.11(d) ..................... Alternative Work Practice Standard ................ Yes.

§ 63.11(e) ..................... Alternative Work Practice Requirements ........ Yes.

§ 63.12 ......................... State Authority and Delegations ..................... Yes.

§ 63.13 ......................... Addresses ....................................................... Yes.

§ 63.14 ......................... Incorporation by Reference ............................ Yes.

§ 63.15 ......................... Availability of Information/Confidentiality ........ Yes.

§ 63.16 ......................... Performance Track Provisions ........................ Yes.

■ 28. Subpart NNN is amended by 

adding Table 2 to read as follows: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—EMISSIONS LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE DATES

If your source is a: And you commenced construction: Your emission limits are: 1 And you must comply 

by: 2

1. Glass-melting furnace ...................... On or before March 31, 1997 ............. 0.5 lb PM per ton of glass pulled 3 ...... June 14, 2002. 

2. Glass-melting furnace ...................... After March 31, 1997 but on or before 

November 25, 2011.

0.5 lb PM per ton of glass pulled 3 ...... June 14, 1999. 

3. Glass-melting furnace ...................... On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.33 lb PM per ton of glass pulled ...... July 31, 2017. 

4. Glass-melting furnace ...................... After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.33 lb PM per ton of glass pulled ...... July 29, 2015.4

5. Gas-fired glass-melting furnace ...... On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 0.00025 lb chromium compounds per 

ton of glass pulled.

July 31, 2017. 

6. Gas-fired glass-melting furnace ...... After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.00025 lb chromium compounds per 

ton of glass pulled.

July 29, 2015.4

7. Rotary spin manufacturing line ........ On or before March 31, 1997 ............. 1.2 lb Formaldehyde per ton of glass 

pulled.

June 14, 2002. 

8. Rotary spin manufacturing line ........ After March 31, 1997 .......................... 0.8 lb Formaldehyde per ton of glass 

pulled.

June 14, 1999. 

9. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a heavy-density product.After March 31, 1997 but on or before 

November 25, 2011.

7.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass 

pulled 3.

June 14, 1999. 

10. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a pipe product.On or before March 31, 1997 ............. 6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass 

pulled 3.

June 14, 2002. 

11. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a pipe product.After March 31, 1997 but before November 25, 2011.6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass 

pulled 3.

June 14, 1999. 

12. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing any product.On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 1.4 lb phenol per ton of glass pulled ..

5.6 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass 

pulled.

0.50 lb methanol per ton of glass 

pulled.

July 31, 2017. 

13. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing any product.After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.44 lb phenol per ton of glass pulled 

2.6 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass 

pulled.

0.35 lb methanol per ton of glass 

pulled.

July 29, 2015.4

1The numeric limits do not apply during startup and shutdown. 

2Existing sources must demonstrate compliance by the compliance dates specified in this table. New sources have 180 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate compliance. 3This limit does not apply after July 31, 2017. 

4Or initial startup, whichever is later. 

[FR Doc. 2015–16643 Filed 7–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2