DATE: February 7, 2013

SUBJECT: Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for Mineral Wool NESHAP

EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-118; EPA Work Assignment No. 4-10

RTI Project No. 0213199.001.007

FROM: Cindy Hancy

Dave Reeves

TO: Susan Fairchild, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of a review on developments in 

practices, processes, and control technologies that apply to mineral wool production, and 

specifically to sources subject to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Mineral Wool Production (40 CFR 63, subpart DDD). This analysis is part of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) review efforts in accordance with section 

112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section I of this memorandum provides background 

information on the requirements of section 112(d)(6) of the CAA, the mineral wool source 

category, and the requirements of the Mineral Wool NESHAP. Section II discusses the review 

of information on developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have 

occurred since the original development of this MACT.

I. Background/Purpose

A. Requirements of Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA

Section 112 of the CAA requires the EPA to establish technology-based standards for sources of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). These technology-based standards are often referred to as 

maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards. Section 112 also contains 

provisions requiring the EPA to revisit these standards. Specifically, paragraph (d)(6) of section 

112 states:

(6) REVIEW AND REVISION. – The Administrator shall review, and revise as 

necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control 

technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section no less often 

than every 8 years.
2

For the purpose of this technology review, a “development” was considered to be any of the 

following: 

 Add-on control technology or other equipment that was not identified and considered 

during the development of the MACT;

 Improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment that were not identified 

and considered during MACT development that could result in significant additional 

HAP emissions reductions;

 Work practice or operational procedure that was not identified and considered during 

MACT development; and

 Process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied that was 

not identified and considered during the development of the MACT.

B. Description of Source Category and MACT Requirements1

Most mineral wool produced in the United States is produced from slag, rock, or a mixture of 

slag and rock. Most of the slag used by the industry is generated by integrated iron and steel 

plants as a blast furnace waste product. Other sources of slag include metal (e.g., copper and 

lead) foundries. The mineral wool production process has three primary components: melting of 

minerals in the cupola, fiber formation and collection, and curing operations. The first step in the 

process involves melting the mineral feed. The raw materials are loaded into a cupola in 

alternating layers with coke. As the coke is ignited and burned, the mineral charge is heated to a

molten state. Combustion air is supplied through tuyeres (ports) located near the bottom of the 

furnace. Process modifications at some plants include oxygen enrichment and the use of natural 

gas auxiliary burners to reduce coke consumption. 

The molten mineral charge exits the bottom of the cupola and falls onto a fiberization device. 

Most of the mineral wool produced in the United States is made by variations of two fiberization 

methods. One process uses groups of rotors revolving at a high rate of speed to form the fibers. 

Molten material is distributed in a thin film on the surfaces of the rotors and then is thrown off 

by centrifugal force. As the material leaves the surface, small globules develop and form long, 

fibrous tails as they travel horizontally. Air or steam may be blown around the rotors to assist in 

fiberizing the material. A second fiberization method uses a spinning concave rotor with air or 

steam attenuation. Molten material is distributed over the surface of the rotor, from which it 

flows up and over the edge and is captured by a high-velocity air stream.

Mineral wool is manufactured as either a “bonded” product that incorporates a binder to increase 

structural rigidity or a less rigid “nonbonded” product. The production of bonded mineral wool 

involves the application of a phenol-formaldehyde based binder to the fiber. Binder may be 

applied in two ways: it may be sprayed onto the fibers during formation at the spinning rotors, or 

it may be sprayed onto the collected fibers after they have been formed into a mat. 

After formation the fibers are collected either in a chamber or by air flow and vacuums onto a 

moving conveyor. Binder may be applied at this step if the product is bonded. Fibers are drawn 

down on a conveyor by a vacuum drawn on the reverse side of the conveyor. If the product is 

bonded, the mineral wool mat with applied bonding agent is carried by conveyor to a curing 
3

oven for thermosetting. A cooling section follows the oven, where blowers force air at ambient 

temperatures through the wool. Nonbonded product does not undergo curing. A summary of 

emission units from mineral wool facilities is included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Summary of Mineral Wool Production Emission Units

Emission Unit Description HAP Emitted

Cupola Vessel in which the mineral charge is melted; COS, metals, HF, 

HCl

Collection/ 

Forming

Blow chamber or area in which air and in some cases 

a binder is sprayed over the fibers, forming them into 

a screen

Formaldehyde, 

methanol, and 

phenol (bonded 

Curing Oven Oven that bonds and thermosets the fibers (for products only)

bonded products)

The current Mineral Wool Production MACT was promulgated on June 1, 1999 and applies to 

existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas and curing ovens at mineral wool production facilities 

that are major sources of HAP emissions. The 1999 Mineral Wool Production MACT sets 

particulate matter (PM) emission limits for new and existing cupolas and carbon monoxide (CO) 

limits for new cupolas. The MACT also established emission limits for formaldehyde from new 

and existing curing ovens. Based on the 1999 MACT, these regulated pollutants currently serve 

as surrogates for other HAPs as follows: PM serves as a surrogate for HAP metals, CO for 

carbonyl sulfide (COS), and formaldehyde for phenol and methanol. The EPA is proposing to

amend the 1999 MACT to remove all surrogacy except PM surrogacy for HAP metals.

The mineral wool production source category currently consists of 8 facilities in the US (7 

existing facilities and 1 under construction); combined, these 8 facilities operate 13 cupolas and 

5 curing ovens. The four facilities that operate curing ovens produce bonded mineral wool 

products. There were no MACT emission limits established for collection operations in the 1999 

Mineral Wool MACT. 

II. Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies for Mineral Wool Production

A. Control Technologies Considered for MACT

For the purpose of this exercise, a “development” was considered to be:

 Any add-on control technology or other equipment (e.g., floating roofs for storage 

tanks) that was not identified and considered during MACT development,

 Any improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that was 

identified and considered during MACT development) that could result in

significant additional emission reduction,

 Any work practice or operational procedure that was not identified and considered 

during MACT development, and

 Any pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied that was not 

identified and considered during MACT development.
4

 Any process change that could be broadly applied that was not identified and 

considered during MACT development.

Table 2 summarizes the practices, processes, and control technologies considered during the 

development of the MACT standard. This is followed by descriptions of the searches for 

developments since that time. The specific information sources that were consulted in this effort 

included EPA regulatory efforts conducted subsequent to these rulemakings (Section II.B), direct 

correspondence with the industry (Section II.C), and the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse (Section II.D).

Table 2. Summary of Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies Identified and 

Considered During Mineral Wool Production MACT Development

Emission Source Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies

Cupolas Fabric filters, cyclones, regenerative thermal oxidizers 

Curing Ovens Thermal oxidizer

Fiber Collection Thermal oxidizer

B. Technology Developments Since Promulgation of MACT

Since the MACT was promulgated in 1999, no developments in the methods for controlling 

emissions from cupolas, curing ovens, or collection operations were identified. Current add-on 

control technologies being utilized are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies Currently Used in

Mineral Wool Production Facilities.

Emission Source Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies

Cupolas Fabric filter, thermal oxidizer, scrubber

Curing Ovens Thermal oxidizer, fabric filter, coke-carbon scrubber

Forming/Collection Thermal oxidizer, fabric filter, scrubber

The coke carbon scrubber was installed in 1997 and uses activated carbon similar to a carbon 

adsorber. The scrubber on the collection system was installed in 1970 and is a cascading water 

scrubber. Both of these scrubbers are located at the same facility and are intended to control 

emissions of binder HAP (formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol).

In reviewing industry information, we found evidence of low sulfur raw materials being used 

that may result in the reduction of sulfur compounds (SO2 and COS) emitted from the stack. The 

EPA identified one facility that has lowered COS emissions from their cupolas by using low 

sulfur rock instead of slag as their raw material. Low sulfur rock has been used to make mineral 

wool before the development of the MACT. However, this rock, composed mostly of limestone, 

is not frequently used as a raw material for mineral wool production because it costs 

approximately 50% more than slag. Based on industry comments on the proposed amendments 

and follow-up discussions with industry representatives, there are availability issues in that low 

sulfur raw materials are not easily attainable or widely available for use in all mineral wool 
5

products. Moreover, many mineral wool plants have located their manufacturing operations near 

their raw material source(s) and use high percentages of recycled products that give them a

competitive advantage in the marketplace.

One facility uses oxygen (O2) injection at the cupola to reduce COS emissions before emitting to

the ambient air. Both RTOs and O2 injection force the conversion of COS to SO2; an RTO

drives the reaction at the control device and O2 injection forces the reaction to occur at the 

cupola.

C. Correspondence with Industry

In an attempt to identify new emission control technologies in use, a voluntary information 

request was sent to all mineral wool facilities. To identify new technologies, facilities were 

asked to identify any controls that did not fall under the following categories: electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP), scrubber, mechanical collector, fabric filter, thermal oxidizer, high velocity 

air filter (HVAF), mist eliminator, or ventilation system. One facility identified a caustic 

injection system was being operated at one of the facility’s cupola. The caustic injection was 

installed on a cupola exhaust in 2003 (after a thermal oxidizer) for control of SO2 emissions. No 

other control devices were identified. 

D. Search for Other Applicable Technology Developments

In addition to the information discussed above, searches of the RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse and the Internet were conducted to identify other technologies or developments 

that could be applied to mineral wool production. The results of these searches are described in 

the following paragraphs.

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse2

Under the EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) program, if a company is planning to build a new 

plant or modify an existing plant such that air pollution emissions will increase by a large 

amount, the company must obtain an NSR permit. The NSR permit is a construction permit 

which requires the company to minimize air pollution emissions by changing the process to 

prevent air pollution and/or installing air pollution control equipment. 

The terms “RACT,” “BACT,” and “LAER” are acronyms for different program requirements 

under the NSR program. RACT, or Reasonably Available Control Technology, is required on 

sources in areas that are not meeting national ambient air quality standards (i.e., non-attainment 

areas). BACT, or Best Available Control Technology, is required on major new or modified 

sources in attainment areas. LAER, or Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, is required on major 

new or modified sources in non-attainment areas. 

BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a case-by-case basis, usually by 

State or local permitting agencies. The EPA established the RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse, or RBLC, to provide a central database of air pollution technology information 

(including past BACT and LAER decisions contained in NSR permits) to promote the sharing of 
6

information among permitting agencies and to aid in future case-by-case determinations. 

However, data in the RBLC are not limited to sources subject to RACT, BACT, and LAER 

requirements. Noteworthy prevention and control technology decisions and information are 

included even if they are not related to past RACT, BACT, or LAER decisions.

The RBLC contains over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can help identify 

appropriate technologies to mitigate most air pollutant emission streams. It was designed to help 

permit applicants and reviewers make pollution prevention and control technology decisions for 

stationary air pollution sources, and includes data submitted by several U.S. territories and all 50 

States on over 200 different air pollutants and 1,000 industrial processes.

To identify technologies appropriate for mineral wool production, searches of the RBLC were 

made using the Process Type Codes: 99.022 - Mineral Wool. All records from 1999 to 2011

were searched. In all cases, the control devices and methods identified through the RBLC search 

do not represent new technologies. Attachment 1 shows the results of the RBLC search for 

mineral wool.

Internet Search

A general search of the Internet was conducted for information on control technologies for 

mineral wool cupolas, curing ovens, and collection operations. The internet search did not

identify any new practices, processes, or technologies that have not already been considered in 

this review.

III. References

1. Emission Factor Documentation For AP-42 Section11.18 (Formerly 8.16) Mineral Wool 

 Manufacturing. http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/bgdocs/b11s18.pdf

2. Technology Transfer Network, Clean Air Technology Center - RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse. http://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/index.cfm?action=Search.BasicSearch&lang=en.
Attachment 1
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT

Report Date:02/07/2013

Facility Information

RBLC ID: OH-0324 (final) Date Determination

Last Updated: 10/26/2009

Corporate/Company Name: JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL INC. Permit Number: 03-17389

Facility Name: JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL INC., PLANT 8 Permit Date: 05/22/2008 (actual)

Facility Contact: G. R. BONIN 4197847916 FRS Number: 110000383549

Facility Description: MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING SIC Code: 3296

Permit Type: C: Modify process at existing facility NAICS Code: 327993

Permit URL:

EPA Region: 5 COUNTRY: USA

Facility County: DEFIANCE

Facility State: OH

Facility ZIP Code: 43512

Permit Issued By: OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Agency Name) 

MS. CHERYL SUTTMAN(Agency Contact) (614)644-3617 mailto:cheryl.suttman@epa.ohio.gov 

Permit Notes: THREE GLASS MELTING POTS, FORMING AND COLLECTION GLASS FIBER LINES. RE-INSTALLATION OF ONE AND

MODIFICATION OF 2 EXISTING LINES TO PRODUCE A FINE FIBERGLASS PRODUCT. FIRST MODIFICATION WAS

ISSUED FINAL 4/22/08 AND REISSUED 5/22/08 FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE; AND MODIFIED AGAIN ON 1/9/09

FOR INCREASE TO VOC LIMIT IN ONE UNIT IN PTI P0103686. THE FACILITY NETTED OUT OF PSD FOR PM10, AND WAS

PSD FOR CARBON MONOXIDE ONLY, ORIGINAL NETTING RESULTS SHOWN BELOW.

Facility-wide Emissions: Pollutant Name: Facility-wide Emissions Increase:

Carbon Monoxide 540.3100 (Tons/Year)

Particulate Matter (PM) -22.6600 (Tons/Year)

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS

NAME:

FORMING AND COLLECTION, LINES #84, 85, AND 87 (3)

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput:

Process Notes: FIBER GLASS FORMING AND COLLECTION LINES; INCLUDES MELTING POTS, BINDER AND COOLING WATER APPLICATION
Process Notes: FIBER GLASS FORMING AND COLLECTION LINES; INCLUDES MELTING POTS, BINDER AND COOLING WATER APPLICATION

SYSTEMS, AND AIR HANDLING COLLECTION BOX. GLASS PULL RATE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS CONFIDENTIAL.

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 9.9900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 43.7600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: THE EMISSION FACTOR USED TO CALCULATE THE EMISSION LIMITS ABOVE, DERIVED FROM A

STACK TEST ON A SIMILAR UNIT, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PERMIT.

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 60.0000 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 262.8000 T/YR PER ROLLING 12-MONTH PERIOD

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 
Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: IT WAS DETERMINED THAT NO CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR CO WERE COST EFFECTIVE. THE

EMISSION FACTOR USED TO CALCULATE THE EMISSION LIMITS ABOVE, DERIVED FROM A

STACK TEST ON A SIMILAR UNIT, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PERMIT.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 7.5100 LB/H FOR UNIT #87

Emission Limit 2: 32.8900 T/YR FOR UNIT #87

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: TWO OF THE THREE UNITS, #84 AND #85, HAVE THE FOLLOWING EMISSION LIMITS FOR EACH

UNIT: 3.2 LB VOC/H AND 14.02 T/Y. IN THE THIRD UNIT #87 THE VOC EMISSION LIMIT HAS BEEN

INCREASE IN PTI#P0103686 ISSUED 1/9/09 AND LIMITS ARE SHOWN ABOVE.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY OPACITY AS 6 MIN AVG EXCEPT BY RULE

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 
Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY OHIO RULE: MAY EXCEED 20% OPACITY, AS A 6-MINUTE AVERAGE,

FOR NOT MORE THAN 6 CONSECUTIVE MINUTES IN ANY 60 MINUTES, BUT SHALL NOT EXCEED

60% OPACITY AS A 6-MINUTE AVERAGE AT ANY TIME.

Facility Information

RBLC ID: OH-0261 (final) Date

Determination

Last Updated: 12/05/2003

Corporate/Company

Name:

JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Permit Number: 03-13522

Facility Name: JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Permit Date: 04/03/2001

(actual)

Facility Contact: NED EWERS 419-784-7962 FRS Number: 110006195777

Facility Description: MANUFACTURER OF INSULATION AND BUILDING PRODUCTS. MODIFICATION TO

INCREASE PIPE INSULATION CAPACITY, CAUSING A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN PM10.

ADDING 2 NEW LINES AND MODIFICATION TO A FEW OTHERS.

SIC Code: 3296

Permit Type: A: New/Greenfield Facility NAICS Code: 327993

Permit URL:

EPA Region: 5 COUNTRY: USA

Facility County: DEFIANCE

Facility State: OH

Facility ZIP Code: 43512

Permit Issued By: OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Agency Name) 

MS. CHERYL SUTTMAN(Agency Contact) (614)644-3617 mailto:cheryl.suttman@epa.ohio.gov 

Other Agency Contact

Info:

CHERYL E. SUTTMAN 

122 S. FRONT ST.

COLUMBUS, OH 43215

614-644-3617

Permit Notes: Manufacturer of wool fiber glass insulation and building products. Modification to increase pipe insulation capacity, causing a significant

increase in PM10. Two new lines and increased production on other lines.

Facility-wide

Emissions:

Pollutant Name: Facility-wide Emissions Increase:

Carbon Monoxide 54.8400 (Tons/Year)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 32.5000 (Tons/Year)
Emissions:

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 32.5000 (Tons/Year)

Particulate Matter (PM) 127.6600 (Tons/Year)

Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 11.1700 (Tons/Year)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 45.6400 (Tons/Year)

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT CURING UNIT #30

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 381.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.5300 LB/H 
Emission Limit 2: 2.3000 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 28643 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.6700 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 2.9200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 
Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.2500 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.1000 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.0600 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.6600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: FORMING AND COLLECTION, #31
Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lbs/hr to 880 lbs/hr.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 7.9400 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 34.7600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:
Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.4000 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 10.5300 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.8800 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 3.8300 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 
Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.1100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 9.2600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

CAS Number: 7446-09-5

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.9900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.3500 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 
Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Fluorides, Total

CAS Number: 16984-48-8

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.3900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.7100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT FINISHING, #30, #37

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified
Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.8600 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 3.7700 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSES AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency: 99.000

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS HANDWRAP PRODUCT CURING UNIT, (2)
PROCESS

NAME:

HANDWRAP PRODUCT CURING UNIT, (2)

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 553.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h. Units #36 and #38.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute avg

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.4100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.8100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A
Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.8400 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 3.6800 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.9800 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.3100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown
Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.4100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.7900 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT CURING UNIT, #37

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 381.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.
Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.7900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 3.4600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.0200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.4700 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 
Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.6700 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 7.3200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 
Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.2200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 9.7200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT CURING UNIT, #38

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glas production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 
Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.0200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 8.8400 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.5600 LB/H 
Emission Limit 2: 11.2100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.9700 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.2500 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 4.0900 LB/H 
Emission Limit 2: 17.9200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

CAS Number: 7446-09-5

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.3400 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.5100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: FORMING AND COLLECTION, #37

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:
Throughput: 381.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

CAS Number: 7446-09-5

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.2200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 5.3400 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Fluorides, Total

CAS Number: 16984-48-8

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.4800 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 2.1000 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes
Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.8500 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 12.4800 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.2200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 9.7200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 
Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 5.8300 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 25.5400 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 
Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.8100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 7.9300 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: HANDWRAP PRODUCT FINISHING

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 553.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified
Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.4300 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.8800 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT FINISHING, #31, #32, #33, #34
Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.1000 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.8200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:
Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT FINISHING, #35, #38

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 
Emission Limit 1: 1.2000 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 5.2600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT

Report Date:02/07/2013

Facility Information

RBLC ID: OH-0324 (final) Date Determination

Last Updated: 10/26/2009

Corporate/Company Name: JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL INC. Permit Number: 03-17389

Facility Name: JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL INC., PLANT 8 Permit Date: 05/22/2008 (actual)

Facility Contact: G. R. BONIN 4197847916 FRS Number: 110000383549

Facility Description: MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING SIC Code: 3296

Permit Type: C: Modify process at existing facility NAICS Code: 327993

Permit URL:

EPA Region: 5 COUNTRY: USA

Facility County: DEFIANCE

Facility State: OH

Facility ZIP Code: 43512

Permit Issued By: OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Agency Name) 

MS. CHERYL SUTTMAN(Agency Contact) (614)644-3617 mailto:cheryl.suttman@epa.ohio.gov 

Permit Notes: THREE GLASS MELTING POTS, FORMING AND COLLECTION GLASS FIBER LINES. RE-INSTALLATION OF ONE AND

MODIFICATION OF 2 EXISTING LINES TO PRODUCE A FINE FIBERGLASS PRODUCT. FIRST MODIFICATION WAS

ISSUED FINAL 4/22/08 AND REISSUED 5/22/08 FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE; AND MODIFIED AGAIN ON 1/9/09

FOR INCREASE TO VOC LIMIT IN ONE UNIT IN PTI P0103686. THE FACILITY NETTED OUT OF PSD FOR PM10, AND WAS

PSD FOR CARBON MONOXIDE ONLY, ORIGINAL NETTING RESULTS SHOWN BELOW.

Facility-wide Emissions: Pollutant Name: Facility-wide Emissions Increase:

Carbon Monoxide 540.3100 (Tons/Year)

Particulate Matter (PM) -22.6600 (Tons/Year)

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS

NAME:

FORMING AND COLLECTION, LINES #84, 85, AND 87 (3)

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput:

Process Notes: FIBER GLASS FORMING AND COLLECTION LINES; INCLUDES MELTING POTS, BINDER AND COOLING WATER APPLICATION
Process Notes: FIBER GLASS FORMING AND COLLECTION LINES; INCLUDES MELTING POTS, BINDER AND COOLING WATER APPLICATION

SYSTEMS, AND AIR HANDLING COLLECTION BOX. GLASS PULL RATE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS CONFIDENTIAL.

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 9.9900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 43.7600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: THE EMISSION FACTOR USED TO CALCULATE THE EMISSION LIMITS ABOVE, DERIVED FROM A

STACK TEST ON A SIMILAR UNIT, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PERMIT.

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 60.0000 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 262.8000 T/YR PER ROLLING 12-MONTH PERIOD

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 
Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: IT WAS DETERMINED THAT NO CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR CO WERE COST EFFECTIVE. THE

EMISSION FACTOR USED TO CALCULATE THE EMISSION LIMITS ABOVE, DERIVED FROM A

STACK TEST ON A SIMILAR UNIT, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PERMIT.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 7.5100 LB/H FOR UNIT #87

Emission Limit 2: 32.8900 T/YR FOR UNIT #87

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: TWO OF THE THREE UNITS, #84 AND #85, HAVE THE FOLLOWING EMISSION LIMITS FOR EACH

UNIT: 3.2 LB VOC/H AND 14.02 T/Y. IN THE THIRD UNIT #87 THE VOC EMISSION LIMIT HAS BEEN

INCREASE IN PTI#P0103686 ISSUED 1/9/09 AND LIMITS ARE SHOWN ABOVE.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY OPACITY AS 6 MIN AVG EXCEPT BY RULE

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 
Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY OHIO RULE: MAY EXCEED 20% OPACITY, AS A 6-MINUTE AVERAGE,

FOR NOT MORE THAN 6 CONSECUTIVE MINUTES IN ANY 60 MINUTES, BUT SHALL NOT EXCEED

60% OPACITY AS A 6-MINUTE AVERAGE AT ANY TIME.

Facility Information

RBLC ID: OH-0261 (final) Date

Determination

Last Updated: 12/05/2003

Corporate/Company

Name:

JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Permit Number: 03-13522

Facility Name: JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Permit Date: 04/03/2001

(actual)

Facility Contact: NED EWERS 419-784-7962 FRS Number: 110006195777

Facility Description: MANUFACTURER OF INSULATION AND BUILDING PRODUCTS. MODIFICATION TO

INCREASE PIPE INSULATION CAPACITY, CAUSING A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN PM10.

ADDING 2 NEW LINES AND MODIFICATION TO A FEW OTHERS.

SIC Code: 3296

Permit Type: A: New/Greenfield Facility NAICS Code: 327993

Permit URL:

EPA Region: 5 COUNTRY: USA

Facility County: DEFIANCE

Facility State: OH

Facility ZIP Code: 43512

Permit Issued By: OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Agency Name) 

MS. CHERYL SUTTMAN(Agency Contact) (614)644-3617 mailto:cheryl.suttman@epa.ohio.gov 

Other Agency Contact

Info:

CHERYL E. SUTTMAN 

122 S. FRONT ST.

COLUMBUS, OH 43215

614-644-3617

Permit Notes: Manufacturer of wool fiber glass insulation and building products. Modification to increase pipe insulation capacity, causing a significant

increase in PM10. Two new lines and increased production on other lines.

Facility-wide

Emissions:

Pollutant Name: Facility-wide Emissions Increase:

Carbon Monoxide 54.8400 (Tons/Year)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 32.5000 (Tons/Year)
Emissions:

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 32.5000 (Tons/Year)

Particulate Matter (PM) 127.6600 (Tons/Year)

Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 11.1700 (Tons/Year)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 45.6400 (Tons/Year)

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT CURING UNIT #30

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 381.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.5300 LB/H 
Emission Limit 2: 2.3000 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 28643 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.6700 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 2.9200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 
Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.2500 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.1000 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.0600 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.6600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: FORMING AND COLLECTION, #31
Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lbs/hr to 880 lbs/hr.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 7.9400 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 34.7600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:
Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.4000 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 10.5300 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.8800 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 3.8300 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 
Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.1100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 9.2600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

CAS Number: 7446-09-5

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.9900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.3500 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 
Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Fluorides, Total

CAS Number: 16984-48-8

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.3900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.7100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT FINISHING, #30, #37

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified
Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.8600 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 3.7700 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSES AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency: 99.000

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS HANDWRAP PRODUCT CURING UNIT, (2)
PROCESS

NAME:

HANDWRAP PRODUCT CURING UNIT, (2)

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 553.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h. Units #36 and #38.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute avg

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.4100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.8100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A
Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.8400 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 3.6800 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.9800 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.3100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown
Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.4100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.7900 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT CURING UNIT, #37

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 381.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.
Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.7900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 3.4600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.0200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.4700 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 
Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.6700 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 7.3200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 
Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.2200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 9.7200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT CURING UNIT, #38

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glas production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 
Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.0200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 8.8400 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.5600 LB/H 
Emission Limit 2: 11.2100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.9700 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.2500 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 4.0900 LB/H 
Emission Limit 2: 17.9200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

CAS Number: 7446-09-5

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.3400 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.5100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: FORMING AND COLLECTION, #37

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:
Throughput: 381.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

CAS Number: 7446-09-5

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.2200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 5.3400 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Fluorides, Total

CAS Number: 16984-48-8

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.4800 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 2.1000 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes
Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds , Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) , Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.8500 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 12.4800 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.2200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 9.7200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 
Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 5.8300 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 25.5400 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 
Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: Based on the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" (PSD) analysis conducted to ensure the application of

"Best Available Control Technology" (BACT), it has been determined that no control technologies were cost

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.8100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 7.9300 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: HANDWRAP PRODUCT FINISHING

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 553.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified
Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.4300 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.8800 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT FINISHING, #31, #32, #33, #34
Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.1000 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.8200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:
Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT FINISHING, #35, #38

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

Process Notes: Using emission factors derived from similar sources at this facility. Wool glass production rate range from 381 lb/h to 880 lb/h.

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( Particulate Matter (PM) ) 
Emission Limit 1: 1.2000 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 5.2600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (A) BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE CONNECTED IN SERIES

Est. % Efficiency:

Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness: 0 $/ton 

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: