Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31695

§ 21.7137 Rates of payment of basic

educational assistance for individuals with

remaining entitlement under 38 U.S.C. ch.

34.

(a) Minimum rates. (1) Except as

elsewhere provided in this section, the

monthly rate of basic educational

assistance for training that occurs after

September 30, 1998, and before October

1, 1999, is the rate stated in the

following table:

Training

Monthly rate

No dependentsOne dependentTwo dependents

Additional

for each additional dependent

Full time ........................................................................................................................... $716.00 $752.00 $783.00 $16.00 3⁄4 time ............................................................................................................................. 537.50 564.00 587.50 12.00 1⁄2 time ............................................................................................................................. 358.00 376.00 391.50 8.50

Less than 1⁄2 but more than 1⁄4 time ................................................................................ 358.00 .................... .................... .................... 1⁄4 time or less ................................................................................................................. 179.00 .................... .................... ....................

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3015(e), (f), and (g))

(2) For veterans pursuing apprenticeship or other on-job training, the monthly rate of basic educational assistance

for training that occurs after September 30, 1998, and before October 1, 1999, is the rate stated in the following table:

Training

Monthly rate

No dependentsOne dependentTwo dependents

Additional

for each additional dependent

1st six months of pursuit of program ............................................................................... $498.75 $511.13 $522.00 $5.25

2nd six months of pursuit of program ............................................................................. 346.78 356.13 363.83 3.85

3rd six months of pursuit of program .............................................................................. 208.60 214.73 219.45 2.45

Remaining pursuit of program ......................................................................................... 196.70 202.48 207.73 2.45

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3015(e), (f), (g))

(3) The monthly rate payable to a veteran who is pursuing a cooperative course is the rate stated in the following

table:

Training period

Monthly rate

No dependentsOne dependentTwo dependents

Additional

for each additional dependent

Oct. 1, 1997–Sept. 30, 1998 ........................................................................................... $627.85 $663.85 $694.85 $16.00

On or after Oct. 1, 1998, and before Oct. 1, 1999 ......................................................... 716.00 752.00 783.00 16.00

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3015)

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99–14916 Filed 6–11–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 63

[FRL–6345–3]

RIN 2060–AE75

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories; Wool Fiberglass

Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates

national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for

new and existing sources in wool

fiberglass manufacturing facilities. This

action also adds Method 316 and

Method 318 for the measurement of

formaldehyde from wool fiberglass

manufacturing lines to appendix A of

part 63.

The hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)

emitted by the facilities covered by this

rule include compounds of three metals

(arsenic, chromium, lead) and three

organic HAPs (formaldehyde, phenol,

and methanol). Exposure to these HAPs

can cause reversible or irreversible

health effects including carcinogenic,

respiratory, nervous system,

developmental, reproductive, and/or

dermal health effects. The EPA

estimates the final rule will reduce

nationwide emissions of HAPs from

these facilities by 530 megagrams per

year (Mg/yr) (580 tons per year [ton/yr]),

an approximate 30 percent reduction

from the current level of emissions. In

addition, the rule will achieve an

estimated 760 Mg/yr (840 ton/yr) of

particulate matter (PM) reductions.

These standards implement section

112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and

are based on the Administrator’s

determination that wool fiberglass

manufacturing facilities may reasonably

be anticipated to emit several of the 188

HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the

CAA from the various process

operations found within the industry.

The final rule will provide protection to

the public by requiring all wool
31696 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

fiberglass plants that are major sources

to meet emission standards reflecting

the application of the maximum

achievable control technology (MACT).

In compliance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), this action also

amends the table that lists the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) control

numbers issued under the PRA for this

rule.

A supplement to the proposed rule

was proposed in the Federal Register on

February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7149). The

EPA will give careful consideration to

all comments on the supplemental

proposal and will amend this final rule

in a future action as appropriate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 1999. See the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section

concerning judicial review.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The docket for this

rulemaking containing the information

considered by the EPA in development

of the final rule is Docket No. A–95–24.

This docket is available for public

inspection between 8 a.m. and 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday except for

Federal holidays, at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6102), 401 M Street

SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone:

(202) 260–7548. The docket is located at

the above address in Room M–1500,

Waterside Mall (ground floor). A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Mary Johnson, at (919) 541–5025,

Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals

Group, Emission Standards Division

(MD–13), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711. For information

regarding Methods 316 and 318, contact

Ms. Rima N. Dishakjian, Emissions,

Monitoring, and Analysis Division, at

(919) 541–0443.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities. Entities potentially

regulated by the final rule are facilities

that manufacture wool fiberglass.

Regulated categories and entities are

shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1.—REGULATED CATEGORIES AND ENTITIES

Entity category Description

Industrial ............................................................................................................................ Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Plants (SIC 3296).

Federal Government: Not Affected.

State/Local/Tribal Government: Not Affected.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that the EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 63.1380 of the

final rule. If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the

appropriate regional representative:

Region I—Janet Bowen, Office of

Ecosystem Protection, U.S. EPA, Region

I, CAP, JFK Federal Building, Boston,

MA 02203, (617) 565–3595.

Region II—Kenneth Eng, Air

Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, NY

10007–1866, (212) 637–4000.

Region III—Bernard Turlinski, Air

Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region III, 3AT10, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215)

566–2110.

Region IV—Lee Page, Air Enforcement

Branch, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street,

Atlanta, GA 30303–3104, (404) 562–

9131.

Region V—George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air

Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region V, 5AE–26, 77 West Jackson

Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353–

2088.

Region VI—John R. Hepola, Air

Enforcement Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite

1200, Dallas, TX 75202–2733, (214)

665–7220.

Region VII—Donald Toensing, Chief,

Air Permitting and Compliance Branch,

U.S. EPA, Region VII, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913)

551–7446.

Region VIII—Douglas M. Skie, Air and

Technical Operations Branch Chief, U.S.

EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite

500, Denver, CO 80202–2466, (303)

312–6432.

Region IX—Barbara Gross, Air

Compliance Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744–1138.

Region X—Anita Frankel, Air and

Radiation Branch Chief, U.S. EPA,

Region X, AT–092, 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–1757.

Judicial Review. The NESHAP for

wool fiberglass manufacturing plants

was proposed on March 31, 1997 (62 FR

15228); this action announces the EPA’s

final decisions on the rule. Under

section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial

review of the NESHAP is available only

by filing a petition for review in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit within 60 days of

today’s publication of this final rule.

Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the

requirements that are the subject of

today’s notice may not be challenged

later in civil or criminal proceedings

brought by the EPA to enforce these

requirements.

Technology Transfer Network. In

addition to being available in the

docket, an electronic copy of today’s

document, which includes the

regulatory text, is available through the

Technology Transfer Network (TTN) at

the Unified Air Toxics Website

(UATW). Following promulgation, a

copy of the rule will be posted at the

TTN’s policy and guidance page for

newly proposed or promulgated rules

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/

t3pfpr.html). The TTN facilitates the

exchange of information in various areas

of air pollution control, such as

technology. If more information on the

TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line

at (919) 541–5384.

Outline. The following outline is

provided to aid in reading this preamble

to the final rule.

I. Background

A. Background and Purpose of Standards

B. Technical Basis of Regulation

C. Stakeholder and Public Participation

II. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability

B. Emission Standards

C. Compliance and Performance Test

Provisions

D. Monitoring and Operating Requirements

E. Notification, Reporting, and

Recordkeeping Requirements

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

A. Definitions

B. Performance Test Provisions

C. Monitoring Requirements

D. Notification, Reporting, and

Recordkeeping Requirements

E. Display of OMB Control Numbers

IV. Summary of Impacts

V. Summary of Responses to Major

Comments

A. Selection of Pollutants
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31697

B. Selection of Emission Limits

C. Monitoring

D. Performance Tests

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

C. Executive Order 12875—Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. Pollution Prevention Act

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

K. Executive Order 13084—Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

I. Background

A. Background and Purpose of

Standards

Section 112 of the CAA requires that

the EPA promulgate regulations for the

control of HAP emissions from both

new and existing major sources. The

statute requires the regulations to reflect

the maximum degree of reduction in

emissions of HAPs that is achievable,

taking into consideration the cost of

achieving the emission reduction, any

nonair quality health and environmental

impacts, and energy requirements. This

level of control is commonly referred to

as MACT.

Section 112 of the CAA requires the

EPA to establish national standards to

reduce air emissions from major sources

and certain area sources that emit one

or more HAPs. Section 112(b) contains

a list of HAPs to be regulated by

NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the

Agency to use this pollutant list to

develop and publish a list of source

categories for which NESHAP will be

developed and a schedule for

development of these NESHAP. The

Agency must list all known source

categories and subcategories of ‘‘major

sources’’ that emit one or more of the

listed HAPs. A major source is defined

in section 112(a) as any stationary

source or group of stationary sources

located within a contiguous area and

under common control that emits or has

the potential to emit in the aggregate,

considering controls, 10 tons per year or

more of any one HAP or 25 tons per year

or more of any combination of HAPs.

This list of source categories was

published in the Federal Register on

July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and

includes wool fiberglass manufacturing.

The control of HAPs is achieved

through the promulgation of technologybased emission standards under section

112 for categories of sources that emit

HAPs. Emission reductions may be

accomplished through the application of

measures, processes, methods, systems,

or techniques including, but not limited

to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or

eliminating emissions of, such

pollutants through process changes,

substitution of materials, or other

modifications; (2) enclosing systems or

processes to eliminate emissions; (3)

collecting, capturing, or treating such

pollutants when released from a

process, stack, storage or fugitive

emissions point; (4) design, equipment,

work practice, or operational standards

(including requirements for operator

training or certification) as provided in

subsection (h); or (5) a combination of

the above. (See section 112(d)(2).) The

EPA may promulgate more stringent

regulations to address residual risk that

remains after the imposition of controls.

(See section 112(f)(2).) Pursuant to

section 112(d) of the CAA, on March 31,

1997, the EPA proposed NESHAP for

new and existing major sources in the

wool fiberglass manufacturing source

category (62 FR 15228).

B. Technical Basis of Regulation

Since proposal, no changes have been

made in the emission standards or the

MACT floor that is the basis for the

emission standards. The rationale for

the selection of the standards, including

their technical basis, is discussed in the

preamble to the proposed rule (62 FR

15228, March 31, 1997).

C. Stakeholder and Public Participation

Various stakeholders were involved in

the development of these standards.

Individual wool fiberglass companies

and the industry association (the North

American Insulation Manufacturers

Association) were consulted throughout

the development of these standards.

Representatives from State and Regional

enforcement agencies, as well as

representatives from other offices within

the EPA, participated in the regulatory

development process by reviewing and

commenting on the standards during

development.

The NESHAP for wool fiberglass

manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart

NNN) was proposed in the Federal

Register on March 31, 1997 (62 FR

15228). The public comment period

ended on May 30, 1997. Industry

representatives, regulatory authorities,

and environmental groups had the

opportunity to comment on the

proposed standard and to provide

additional information during the

public comment period. Although the

Agency offered at proposal the

opportunity for oral presentation of

data, views, or arguments concerning

the proposed rule, no one requested a

hearing and a hearing was not held. The

EPA received nine letters containing

comments on the proposed standard

from various groups including

associations representing industry,

regulatory agencies, and air pollution

control equipment vendors, as well as

from State regulatory agencies and a

private citizen. This final rule reflects

the EPA’s full consideration of the

comments. The major public comments,

along with the EPA’s responses to the

comments on the proposed rule, are

summarized in this preamble. A more

detailed discussion of public comments

and EPA’s responses is contained in the

docket (Docket No. A–95–24; Item V–C–

2).

II. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability

As stated in § 63.1380, the final

NESHAP applies to each of the

following existing and newly

constructed sources located at a wool

fiberglass manufacturing facility: All

glass-melting furnaces, rotary spin (RS)

manufacturing lines that produce

bonded building insulation, and flame

attenuation (FA) manufacturing lines

producing bonded pipe insulation. The

rule also applies to new FA

manufacturing lines producing bonded

heavy-density products. RS and FA

manufacturing lines that produce

nonbonded products, where no binder

is applied, are not subject to the

standards. A facility emitting less than

10 tons per year of any HAP or less than

25 tons per year of any combination of

HAPs is an area source and is not

subject to this NESHAP. Facilities that

manufacture mineral wool from rock or

slag are not subject to this rule but are

subject to a separate NESHAP for

mineral wool production. (See 62 FR

25370 (May 8, 1997), notice of proposed

rulemaking.)

B. Emission Standards

No changes were made to the

emission limits as proposed. The

emission standards are contained in the

final rule in § 63.1382.

C. Compliance and Performance Test

Provisions

As stated in § 63.1387, new sources

must demonstrate compliance with the

standard at startup. Existing sources

must comply within 3 years of the

effective date of the final rule but may

request an extension for a fourth year

pursuant to the regulatory authority

under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the CAA.
31698 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

As required by § 63.1384, owners or

operators must, by conducting a

performance test, demonstrate initial

compliance with the PM emission limits

for affected glass-melting furnaces and

the formaldehyde emission limits for

affected RS and FA manufacturing lines.

During the initial performance test, the

owner or operator must monitor and

record the glass pull rate of the furnace

and the glass pull rate of each

manufacturing line during each of the

three test runs and determine the

emission rate for each run. A

determination of compliance will be

based on the average of the three

individual test runs.

In § 63.1384, the owner or operator is

required to monitor and record all

parameter values at least every 15

minutes during the performance test

and to calculate an average using all of

the parameter measurements. However,

the standard requires that the

appropriate parameters for incinerators

and scrubbers be continuously

monitored and recorded.

The owner or operator of an

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) that is

used to control PM emissions from a

glass-melting furnace must monitor and

record the ESP operating parameter(s)

and establish the parameter limit(s) that

will be used to monitor the ESP

performance following the performance

test. Where a cold top electric furnace

is operated without the use of an addon PM control device, the owner or

operator must monitor and record the

air temperature above the surface of the

glass melt to ensure that the maximum

temperature does not exceed 120 °C

(250 °F) at a location 46 to 61

centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the

molten glass surface. The owner or

operator of a glass-melting furnace that

is not equipped with an add-on PM

control device and that is not a cold top

electric furnace must monitor and

record the furnace operating

parameter(s) and establish the parameter

limit(s) that will be used to monitor the

furnace performance following the

performance test.

To determine compliance with the

emission limits for new and existing RS

and FA manufacturing lines subject to

the standard, the owner or operator

must measure formaldehyde emissions

to the atmosphere from forming and,

when present, curing and cooling

processes, and sum the emissions from

these processes. The owner or operator

must, according to § 63.1384, conduct

the initial performance test for each new

or existing RS manufacturing line while

making the building insulation product

with the highest loss on ignition (LOI)

expected to be produced on that

manufacturing line. Initial performance

tests are required for new FA

manufacturing lines producing heavydensity products and on new and

existing FA manufacturing lines

producing pipe products. Performance

tests for each affected FA manufacturing

line must be conducted while producing

the highest LOI heavy-density or pipe

product, as appropriate.

During performance tests on affected

RS and FA manufacturing lines, the

owner or operator must record, as

specified in § 63.1384, the LOI and

density of each product for each line

tested, the free formaldehyde content of

the resin(s) used during the tests, and

the binder formulation(s) used during

the tests. The performance tests must be

conducted using the resin having the

highest free formaldehyde content that

the owner or operator expects to use on

that line. If the owner or operator uses

process modifications to comply with

the emission limits for affected RS or FA

manufacturing lines, the owner or

operator must monitor and record the

process parameter(s) and establish the

process parameter limit(s) that will be

used to monitor the performance of the

process modifications following the

performance tests. If a wet scrubbing

control device is used to control

formaldehyde emissions from affected

RS or FA manufacturing lines, the

owner or operator must continuously

monitor and record the scrubber

parameters and establish the operating

limits of the pressure drop across each

scrubber, the scrubbing liquid flow rate

to each scrubber, and the identity and

feed rate of any chemical additive.

Where a thermal incinerator is used to

comply with the emission limit for

formaldehyde, the owner or operator is

required to continuously measure and

record the incinerator operating

temperature during the performance test

and determine the average temperature

during each 1-hour test run. The average

of the three test runs will be used to

monitor compliance.

Under § 63.1384, the owner or

operator may seek to broaden or extend

the operating limits established during

the performance tests for affected

control devices and processes by

conducting additional performance tests

to demonstrate compliance at the new

limits.

Under § 63.1384, the owner or

operator of RS and FA manufacturing

lines may conduct short-term

experimental production runs without

conducting additional performance

tests. The final rule requires the owner

or operator to notify the Administrator

at least 15 days in advance of an

experimental production run. The

experimental runs must not exceed 1

week in duration unless a longer period

is approved by the Administrator. The

owner or operator may conduct the

experimental production run unless

notified of a decision to disapprove the

run or unless notified of a request for

additional information prior to the date

of the run.

D. Monitoring and Operating

Requirements

Owners or operators of affected

sources must submit, under § 63.1383,

an operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan as part of their

application for a part 70 permit. The

plan must include procedures for the

proper operation and maintenance of

processes and control devices used to

comply with the emission limits as well

as the corrective actions to be taken

when control devices or process

parameters deviate from allowable

levels established during performance

testing. The plan also must identify the

procedures for the proper operation and

maintenance of monitoring devices

including periodic calibration and

verification of accuracy.

Section 63.1383 requires that each

baghouse used on a glass-melting

furnace be equipped with a bag leak

detection system having an audible

alarm that automatically sounds when

an increase in particulate emissions

above a predetermined level is detected.

Such a device monitors the performance

of the baghouse, detects an increase in

PM emissions, and indicates that

maintenance of the baghouse is needed.

The operating limits of § 63.1382 require

the owner or operator to initiate

corrective action within 1 hour of the

alarm sounding according to the

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan. If the alarm is

activated for more than 5 percent of the

total operating time during the 6-month

block reporting period, the owner or

operator must develop and implement a

Quality Improvement Plan (QIP). The

QIP must be consistent with the

compliance assurance monitoring rule,

40 CFR part 64 subpart D (62 FR 54900,

October 22, 1997).

The monitoring requirements of

§ 63.1383 require the owner or operator

of each ESP used to control an affected

glass-melting furnace to monitor and

record the established ESP parameter(s)

according to the procedures in the

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan. The final rule requires

the owner or operator to initiate

corrective action within 1 hour,

according to the procedures in the

facility’s operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan, if the monitored
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31699

parameter(s) deviates from the limit(s)

established during performance tests. If

the monitored parameter(s) is outside

the established limit(s) for more than 5

percent of the total operating time in a

6-month block reporting period, the

owner or operator must develop and

implement a QIP. The owner or operator

must operate the ESP such that the

monitored parameter(s) does not deviate

from the established limit(s) for more

than 10 percent of the total operating

time in a 6-month block reporting

period.

Under § 63.1383 of the final rule, the

owner or operator of a cold top electric

furnace, who complies with the PM

emission limit without the use of an air

pollution control device, must monitor

and record the air temperature above the

glass melt to monitor when the

temperature exceeds the maximum

temperature of 120 °C (250 °F) measured

at a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to

24 inches) above the molten glass

surface. The owner or operator must

initiate corrective action within 1 hour

according to § 63.1382 if the average air

temperature exceeds the maximum. If

the air temperature as measured above

the molten glass exceeds the maximum

for more than 5 percent of the total

operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period, the owner or operator

is required to develop and implement a

QIP. The rule also requires that the

owner or operator operate the cold top

electric furnace so that the maximum

temperature is not exceeded for more

than 10 percent of the total operating

time in a 6-month block reporting

period.

The final rule (§ 63.1383) requires the

owner or operator of a glass-melting

furnace, which is not equipped with an

air pollution control device for PM

control and which is not a cold top

electric furnace, to monitor the glassmelting furnace according to the

procedures in the operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan. The

plan must include the furnace operating

parameter(s) and parameter limit(s) to

be monitored to identify any operational

problems, a monitoring schedule, and

recordkeeping procedures. As required

by § 63.1382, the owner or operator

must initiate corrective action within 1

hour if the monitored operating

parameter(s) deviates from the limits

established during the initial

performance. The rule also requires the

owner or operator to develop and

implement a QIP if the monitored

furnace operating parameter value(s) is

outside the established limit(s) for more

than 5 percent of the total operating

time in a 6-month block reporting

period. The owner or operator must

operate the affected glass-melting

furnace so that the monitored furnace

parameter value(s) is not outside the

established limit(s) for more than 10

percent of the total operating time in a

6-month block reporting period.

The final rule, under § 63.1383,

requires the owner or operator to

monitor and record the glass pull rate

on all existing and new glass-melting

furnaces. If the monitored pull rate

exceeds by more than 20 percent the

average glass pull rate measured during

the performance test, the owner or

operator must initiate corrective action

within 1 hour as required by § 63.1383.

If the glass pull rate exceeds (by more

than 20 percent) the average established

during the performance test for more

than 5 percent of the total operating

time in a 6-month block reporting

period, the owner or operator must

develop and implement a QIP. The final

rule requires the owner or operator to

operate the glass-melting furnace so that

the glass pull rate does not exceed (by

more than 20 percent) the average

established during the performance test

for more than 10 percent of the total

operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period.

If an incinerator is used to control

formaldehyde emissions, § 63.1383

requires that the owner or operator

continuously monitor and record the

operating temperature. Following the

initial performance test, the operating

limits of § 63.1382 require that the

owner or operator maintain the

temperature so that the temperature,

averaged over any 3-hour block period,

does not fall below the average

temperature established during the

initial performance test. As required in

§ 63.1383, the owner or operator must

also annually inspect each incinerator to

ensure its proper operation and

maintenance. The rule specifies that, at

a minimum, the following be included

in the inspection:

(1) Burners, pilot assemblies, and

pilot sensing devices;

(2) Adjustment of combustion air;

(3) Internal structures, such as baffles;

(4) Dampers, fans, and blowers;

(5) Proper sealing;

(6) Motors;

(7) Refractory lining; and (8)

Incinerator shell.

Section 63.1383 of the final rule

requires that the owner or operator, who

uses a wet scrubbing control device to

control formaldehyde emissions from

affected RS or FA manufacturing lines,

continuously monitor and record the gas

pressure drop across each scrubber, the

scrubbing liquid flow rate to each

scrubber, and the identity and feed rate

of any chemical added to the scrubbing

liquid. As required in § 63.1382, the

owner or operator must initiate

corrective action according to the

procedures in the facility’s operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan

within 1 hour if the average scrubber

parameter for any 3-hour block period

deviates from the limit(s) established

during the initial performance test. If

any scrubber parameter is outside an

established limit(s) for more than 5

percent of the total operating time in a

6-month block reporting period, the

owner or operator must develop and

implement a QIP. The owner or operator

must operate each affected scrubber

such that none of the monitored

parameters deviate from the established

limits for more than 10 percent of the

total operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period.

As required in § 63.1383, the owner or

operator who uses process

modifications to comply with the

emission limits for RS or FA

manufacturing lines must establish a

correlation between the parameter(s) to

be monitored and formaldehyde

emissions. The owner or operator must

also include as part of the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan

information on how the process will be

operated and maintained, the process

parameter(s) to be monitored including

the correlation between the parameter(s)

and formaldehyde emissions, a

monitoring schedule, and recordkeeping

procedures to document proper

operation of the process modifications.

Section 63.1382 of the final rule

requires the owner or operator to initiate

corrective action within 1 hour of a

deviation of a process parameter from

the established limits and to develop

and implement a QIP if the process

parameter(s) is outside the established

limit(s) for more than 5 percent of the

total operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period. The owner or operator

must operate the process so that the

process modification parameters do not

deviate from the established limits for

more than 10 percent of the total

operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period.

Under § 63.1383 of the final rule, the

owner or operator must monitor and

record the free formaldehyde content of

each resin shipment, the formulation of

each batch of binder used, and, every 8

hours, product LOI and product density.

Following the performance test,

§ 63.1382 requires that the owner or

operator must formulate binders using

resins having a free formaldehyde

content that does not exceed the free

formaldehyde content range contained

in the resin specification established

and used during the performance test.
31700 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

The final rule also requires that the

owner or operator use a binder

formulation that does not vary from the

specification and operating range

established during the performance test.

For purposes of this rule, the addition

of urea and lignin to the binder

formulation is not considered changes

in the formulation.

Failure to operate all affected

processes and control devices according

to the operating limits of § 63.1382, for

example, failure to initiate corrective

actions or failure to develop and

implement a QIP, is considered a

violation of the operating requirements.

Under § 63.1383 of this rule, the

owner or operator may modify any of

the control device or process parameter

limits established during the initial

performance tests provided that the

owner or operator conducts additional

emission testing to verify compliance at

the new parameter levels.

E. Notification, Reporting, and

Recordkeeping Requirements

Notification, reporting, and

recordkeeping requirements for MACT

standards are included in the NESHAP

general provisions (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A). The general provisions

require: (1) Initial notification(s) of

applicability, notification of

performance test, and notification of

compliance status; (2) a report of

performance test results; (3) a startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan with

semiannual reports of any reportable

events; and (4) semiannual reports of

deviations from established parameters.

When deviations in operating

parameters established during

performance testing are reported, the

owner or operator must report quarterly

until a request to return to semiannual

reporting is approved by the

Administrator.

In addition to the requirements of the

general provisions, § 63.1386 of the final

rule specifies additional records to be

kept by the owner or operator. The final

rule requires the owner or operator to

maintain records of the following, as

applicable:

(1) Bag leak detection system alarms,

including the date and time of the

alarm, when corrective actions were

initiated, the cause of the alarm, an

explanation of the corrective actions

taken, and when the cause of the alarm

was corrected;

(2) ESP parameter value(s) used to

monitor ESP performance, including

any period when the value(s) deviates

from the established limit(s), the date

and time of the deviation, when

corrective actions were initiated, the

cause of the deviation, an explanation of

the corrective actions taken, and when

the cause of the deviation was corrected;

(3) Air temperature above the molten

glass in an uncontrolled cold top

electric furnace, including any period

when the temperature exceeds 120 °C

(250 °F) at a location 46 to 61

centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the

molten glass surface, the date and time

of the exceedance, when corrective

actions were initiated, the cause of the

exceedance, an explanation of the

corrective actions taken, and when the

cause of the exceedance was corrected;

(4) Uncontrolled glass-melting furnace

(that is not a cold top electric furnace)

parameter value(s) used to monitor

furnace performance, including any

period when the value(s) exceeds the

established limit(s), the date and time of

the exceedance, when corrective actions

were initiated, the cause of the

exceedance, an explanation of the

corrective actions taken, and when the

cause of the exceedance was corrected;

(5) The LOI and product density for

each bonded product manufactured on

a RS or FA manufacturing line, the free

formaldehyde content of each resin

shipment received and used in binder

formulation, and the binder formulation

of each batch;

(6) Process parameter level(s) for RS

and FA manufacturing lines that use

process modifications to comply with

the emission standards, including any

period when the parameter level(s)

deviates from the established limit(s),

the date and time of the deviation, when

corrective actions were initiated, the

cause of the deviation, an explanation of

the corrective actions taken, and when

the cause of the deviation was corrected;

(7) Scrubber pressure drop, scrubbing

liquid flow rate, and any chemical

additive (including chemical feed rate to

the scrubber), including any period

when a parameter level(s) deviates from

the established limit(s), the date and

time of the deviation, when corrective

actions were initiated, the cause of the

deviation, an explanation of the

corrective actions taken, and when the

cause of the deviation was corrected;

(8) Incinerator operating temperature

and results of periodic inspection of

incinerator components, including any

period when the temperature falls below

the established average or the inspection

identifies problems with the incinerator,

the date and time of the problem, when

corrective actions were initiated, the

cause of the problem, an explanation of

the corrective actions taken, and when

the cause of the problem was corrected;

(9) Glass pull rate, including any

period when the pull rate exceeds the

average pull rate established during the

performance test by more than 20

percent, the date and time of the

exceedance, when corrective actions

were initiated, the cause of the

exceedance, an explanation of the

corrective actions taken, and when the

cause of the exceedance was corrected.

The NESHAP general provisions (40

CFR part 63, subpart A) require that

records be maintained for at least 5

years from the date of each record. The

owner or operator must retain the

records onsite for at least 2 years but

may retain the records offsite the

remaining 3 years. The files may be

retained on microfilm, on microfiche,

on a computer, on computer disks, or on

magnetic tape disks. Reports may be

made on paper or on a labeled computer

disk using commonly available and

EPA-compatible computer software.

III. Summary of Changes Since

Proposal

Changes have been incorporated into

the final NESHAP for wool fiberglass

manufacturing plants in response to

comments on the proposed rule. The

principal changes made since proposal

are summarized below. Additional

discussion of changes and the rationale

for these changes is presented in section

V of this preamble.

A. Definitions

In response to public comments,

minor clarifying changes were made in

§ 63.1381 to the definitions of building

insulation, glass pull rate,

manufacturing line, and wool fiberglass.

For purposes of clarifying the

applicability of the rule and because of

changes in the monitoring requirements

for certain glass-melting furnaces,

definitions were added for cold top

electric furnace, new source, and wool

fiberglass manufacturing facility.

B. Performance Test Provisions

In response to public comments, the

EPA revised the proposed provision that

would allow the owner or operator of

RS and FA manufacturing lines subject

to the NESHAP to conduct short-term

experimental production runs without

conducting additional performance

tests. Section 63.1384 of the final rule

requires that the owner or operator

notify the Administrator at least 15 days

in advance of an experimental

production run. The duration of the test

run may not exceed 1 week unless the

Administrator approves a longer period.

The Administrator may disapprove the

experimental production run or request

additional information but such

disapproval or request for additional

information must be made prior to the

date of the experimental production

run.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31701

Other revisions clarify the proposed

requirements for performance testing by

specifying the frequency for monitoring

and recording process and/or control

device parameters during performance

tests. The requirements to establish

process and control device parameter

limits for compliance monitoring are

more appropriately a part of the

requirements for performance testing

and, thus, were moved from the

monitoring requirements section to the

performance test requirements section.

The requirement for RS manufacturing

lines to use the most frequently

manufactured building insulation when

conducting performance tests was

deleted from the proposed definition of

building insulation. A requirement was

added to the performance testing

provisions (§ 63.1384) for affected RS

and FA manufacturing lines to conduct

performance test while manufacturing

the product having the highest LOI

expected to be produced on the affected

line. Because a glass-melting furnace

may supply more than one

manufacturing line, the final rule

clarifies that, in addition to the furnace

glass pull rate, the glass pull rate for the

manufacturing line must also be

monitored during the performance test.

Methods for measuring formaldehyde

emissions from RS and FA

manufacturing lines were contained in

the proposed rule. Because the Agency

now has an FTIR method (Method 320)

that can be used at other sources, a selfvalidating method is no longer

necessary. Method 318 was modified by

removing the spiking procedures, which

simplifies use of the method. The EPA

has also clarified that this method is

only applicable at mineral wool and

wool fiberglass manufacturing sources.

In response to comments, the final rule

also contains editorial and clarifying

changes in Method 318.

C. Monitoring Requirements

The monitoring requirements section

in the proposed rule specified, for each

control device and process, the

parameter that was to be monitored. In

the final rule, the section on monitoring

requirements was revised. In the final

rule, the monitoring requirements

section (§ 63.1383) specifies that process

or control device parameters must be

monitored as well as monitoring

frequency. The final rule recognizes that

a deviation of a process or control

device parameter from a level

established during a performance test is

more appropriately a violation of an

operating limit rather than a violation of

an emission limit. The operating limits

are part of the standard and are

specified in § 63.1382.

The proposed rule stated that the

owner or operator of each affected

source had to submit an operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan

containing information on the proper

operation and maintenance of process

modifications and control devices, the

parameter(s) to be monitored that would

be used to determine compliance, and

corrective actions to be taken when

monitoring indicated a deviation from

the limit(s) established during the

performance tests. The final rule

(§ 63.1383) clarifies that the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan must

also include procedures for the proper

operation and maintenance of all

monitoring devices. As proposed, each

baghouse used on a glass-melting

furnace must be equipped with a bag

leak detection system having an audible

alarm that automatically sounds when

an increase in particulate emissions

above a predetermined level is detected.

In response to comments and for

consistency with other regulations,

§ 63.1383 of the final standard requires

that the monitor be capable of detecting

PM emissions at concentrations of 10

milligrams per actual cubic meter

(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot).

Also, because guidelines for the

operation and maintenance of

triboelectric bag leak detection systems

have become available since proposal,

these guidelines are specifically cited in

the rule. The EPA’s ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag

Leak Detection Guidance’’ (EPA–454/R–

98–015, September 1997) is available on

the TTN under Emission Measurement

Center (EMC), Continuous Emission

Monitoring. To maintain consistency

with bag leak detection system

requirements in other regulations and to

allow owners and operators flexibility to

make necessary bag leak detection

system adjustments, the final rule

specifies that following initial

adjustment, the owner or operator may

adjust the range, averaging period, alarm

set points, or alarm delay time as

specified in the approved operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan. The

final rule further specifies that in no

event may the range be increased by

more than 100 percent or decreased by

more than 50 percent over a 365 day

period unless a responsible official, as

defined in § 63.2 of the general

provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part

63, certifies in writing to the

Administrator that the fabric filter has

been inspected and found to be in good

operating condition. The final rule

clarifies that the alarm must be located

in an area where appropriate plant

personnel will be able to hear it and that

in response to the sounding of an alarm,

the owner or operator must complete

corrective actions in a timely manner.

The final rule also specifies some

example corrective actions for bag leak

detection system alarms that may be

included in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

Under the proposed rule, the owner or

operator would continuously monitor

and record the glass pull rate on all

existing and new glass-melting furnaces.

As a result of comments, § 63.1383 of

the final rule clarifies what is meant by

continuous monitoring of the glass pull

rate. Similar revisions were made to the

monitoring requirements for other

control devices and process parameters

to clarify the requirements for

monitoring frequency. Revisions were

made to the proposed rule to clarify

when corrective actions are required in

response to monitored levels that are

outside the limits established during

performance tests.

Under the proposed NESHAP, the

owner or operator would be in violation

of the standard if the binder formulation

deviated from the formulation

specifications used during the

performance test. In response to

comments, the final rule states that the

addition of urea and lignin to the binder

formulation does not constitute a

change in binder formulation, and the

operating limits in § 63.1382 for the

binder formulation and the use of resins

were clarified to incorporate this

change.

In response to comments, clarifying

changes were made throughout the

monitoring and operating requirements

to indicate that because some control

device or process parameters used for

monitoring purposes may be established

as minimum and/or maximum values, it

is not always appropriate to have

requirements that are in terms of

exceeding control device or process

parameter values. Other minor editorial

changes were made throughout the

monitoring and operating requirements

to improve clarity.

Consistent with the general provision

requirements to operate and maintain

air pollution equipment in a manner

consistent with good air pollution

control practices, the final rule contains

specific provisions for the annual

inspection of incinerators to ensure that

they maintain their performance in

reducing formaldehyde emissions.

The proposed rule allowed the owner

or operator of a glass-melting furnace

that complies with the PM emission

limit without the use of add-on control

devices to determine the appropriate

process parameter or control device

parameter to monitor to determine

compliance. Section 63.1383 of the final
31702 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

rule specifies that the owner or operator

of a cold top electric furnace is required

to monitor the air temperature above the

molten glass surface. Section 63.1382

requires the owner or operator of a cold

top electric furnace to operate the

furnace such that the air temperature

above the molten glass does not exceed

120 °C (250 °F) more than 10 percent of

total operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period.

D. Notification, Reporting, and

Recordkeeping Requirements

The proposed rule specified

additional records to be kept by the

owner or operator in addition to the

requirements of the general provisions.

Editorial and clarifying revisions were

made to the final notification, reporting,

and recordkeeping requirements

(§ 63.1386). The final rule specifies that

the time that corrective action is

initiated, as well as when the cause of

the alarm, deviation, or exceedance was

corrected, must be recorded. In

addition, product density and glass pull

rate were added to the list for which

records are required to be kept,

consistent with the monitoring

provisions in § 63.1383. Other revisions

were made to the recordkeeping

provisions consistent with changes

made in the monitoring and operating

provisions.

E. Display of OMB Control Numbers

The EPA is today amending the table

of currently approved information

collection request (ICR) control numbers

issued by OMB for various regulations.

Today’s amendment updates the table to

list the information requirements

contained in this final rule. The EPA

will continue to present OMB control

numbers in a consolidated table format

to be codified in 40 CFR part 9 of the

Agency’s regulations, and in each CFR

volume containing EPA regulations. The

table lists the section numbers with

reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, and the current OMB

control numbers. This listing of the

OMB control numbers and its

subsequent codification in the CFR

satisfy the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB’s

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part

1320.

The ICR was previously subject to

public notice and comment prior to

OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds

there is ‘‘good cause’’ under section

553(b)(B) of the Administrative

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to

amend this table without prior notice

and comment. Due to the technical

nature of the table, further notice and

comment would be unnecessary.

IV. Summary of Impacts

The impacts estimated to be

attributable to the final rule are the same

as those estimated to be attributable to

the proposed rule (62 FR 15228, March

31, 1997). Nationwide emissions of

formaldehyde from existing RS and FA

manufacturing lines are estimated to be

1,770 Mg/yr (1,950 ton/yr) at the current

level of control. Implementation of the

final rule will reduce nationwide

formaldehyde emissions from existing

sources by 410 Mg/yr (450 ton/yr).

Emission reductions from RS

manufacturing lines producing building

insulation constitute the entire

reduction; there are no emission

reductions from FA manufacturing

lines. Reduction in formaldehyde

emissions from new RS manufacturing

lines is estimated to be 120 Mg/yr (130

ton/yr) in the fifth year of the standard.

Total reductions in formaldehyde

emissions from both existing and new

RS manufacturing lines, therefore will

be 530 Mg/yr (580 ton/yr). Nationwide

PM emissions from existing glassmelting furnaces at the current level of

control, are about 750 Mg/yr (830 ton/

yr). Under this rule, PM emissions from

existing furnaces will be reduced by

about 600 Mg/yr (660 ton/yr), of which

40 Mg/yr (50 ton/yr) is particulate

matter less than 10 microns (μm) in

diameter (PM–10). The PM emission

reduction from new glass-melting

furnaces resulting from this rule is

estimated to be 160 Mg/yr (180 ton/yr)

in the fifth year of the standard. Under

the final rule, PM emissions from

existing and new furnaces will be

reduced by a total of 760 Mg/yr (840

ton/yr). Current nationwide emissions

of metal HAPs from existing furnaces is

270 kg/yr (600 lb/yr). Under the final

rule, metal HAP emissions from existing

furnaces and new furnaces will be

reduced by 9 kg/yr (20 lb/yr) and 2 kg/

yr (5 lb/yr), respectively.

The EPA expects no water or solid

waste impacts from the final rule.

Because this standard is based on the

use of baghouses, dry ESP’s, thermal

incinerators, and process modifications,

there are no water pollution impacts.

One existing RS manufacturing line uses

scrubbers to control HAP emissions

from forming. This rule will not affect

the water pollution impact of the

scrubbers. No additional sources are

expected to add wet scrubbers for the

control of HAP emissions. The PM

captured by the baghouses added to

existing uncontrolled electric furnaces

will be recycled back to the furnace and

no solid or hazardous waste is generated

by the use of thermal incinerators. The

EPA estimates that the rule will have a

minor impact on energy consumption.

The total nationwide capital cost for

existing glass-melting furnaces under

the final rule is $3.2 million; the total

annual cost is $1.5 million. These costs

result from the expected addition of

baghouses to seven electric glassmelting furnaces as well as the

monitoring costs of bag leak detection

systems installed on baghouses and

temperature monitors installed on cold

top electric furnaces.

The EPA estimates the nationwide

capital costs of upgrading process

modifications on 30 RS manufacturing

lines to be $16.3 million, with annual

costs of $4.8 million. None of the

existing curing ovens that are

uncontrolled for HAPs will have to add

an incinerator. None of the FA

manufacturing lines subject to the rule

will require additional controls to

comply with the emission standards.

Therefore, no control costs are

associated with complying with the

final rule for FA manufacturing lines.

For all RS and FA manufacturing lines

subject to the standard, there is a onetime cost of $15,000 per line to establish

the process parameter values for

compliance monitoring. Because the

parameters that the owner or operator is

required to monitor on RS and FA

manufacturing lines are currently

monitored by the industry, no

additional costs will be incurred for

monitoring beyond the one-time cost of

$15,000 per line.

Total nationwide capital cost for the

standard is estimated to be $19.5

million and annual nationwide cost is

estimated to be $6.3 million/yr,

including installation, operation, and

maintenance of emission control and

monitoring systems.

The economic analysis of the rule

finds impacts at the facility and marketlevel to be modest. The average market

price increases for both structural and

nonstructural wool fiberglass are

expected to be less than 0.5 percent. The

resultant decreases in quantity

demanded range from 0.17 percent for

structural insulation markets to 0.22

percent for nonstructural insulation

markets. None of the affected firms are

classified as small businesses and no

closures are predicted.

V. Summary of Responses to Major

Comments

The EPA received nine comment

letters on the proposed NESHAP for

wool fiberglass manufacturing. A copy

of each comment letter is available for

public inspection in the docket for the

rulemaking (Docket No. A–95–24; see
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31703

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble

for information on inspecting the

docket). The EPA has had follow-up

discussions with commenters regarding

specific issues initially raised in their

written comments. Copies of

correspondence and other information

exchanged between the EPA and the

commenters during the post-comment

period are available for public

inspection in the docket for the

rulemaking.

All comments received by EPA were

reviewed and carefully considered by

the Agency. The EPA made changes to

the rule where appropriate. A summary

of responses to major comments

received on the proposed rule is

presented below. Additional discussion

of the EPA’s responses to public

comments is presented in the document

‘‘Summary of Public Comments and

Responses on Wool Fiberglass

Manufacturing NESHAP’’ (Docket A–

95–24, Item V–C–2).

A. Selection of Pollutants

Comment: Two commenters stated

that the issues of fine mineral fibers as

HAP and the health effects of wool

fiberglass particles greater than 1 micron

in diameter should be addressed. One

commenter stated that because the

definition of fine mineral fibers is under

review in response to new data on

health effects and respirability, the EPA

should address in the final preamble the

possibility of a new definition for fine

mineral fibers and its effects on the

NESHAP.

Response: The rule does not include

emission limits for fine mineral fibers at

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities

because EPA determined that the

affected sources do not emit ‘‘fine

mineral fibers,’’ as presently defined by

the CAA. Fiberglass emissions from the

affected manufacturing lines at wool

fiberglass manufacturing facilities

consist of clumps of fibers that are much

larger than 10 micrometers in diameter.

The CAA, by contrast, defines ‘‘fine

mineral fibers’’ to include mineral fiber

emissions from facilities manufacturing

or processing glass, rock, or slag fibers

(or other mineral derived fibers) of

average diameter 1 micrometer or less.

(See section 112(b)(1)n.3.)

B. Selection of Emission Limits

Comment: One commenter stated that

the EPA determined the MACT floor for

glass-melting furnaces inappropriately

by establishing equipment standards as

the MACT floor rather than a

straightforward determination of

numerical MACT floors as specified in

section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. Such an

approach, according to the commenter,

has allowed the EPA to use emissions

data from the worst performing units to

set emission limits that are no more

stringent than the nearly 20-year-old

NSPS for glass-melting furnaces. The

commenter believes that new baghouses

and precipitators, and low-cost

upgrades of existing ones, would allow

much more stringent emission limits.

The commenter stated that the EPA

should base the MACT floors on the

numerical emissions of the best

performing 12 percent for existing

sources and the best performing source

for new sources and revise the emission

limits to be consistent with the more

stringent floors.

Response: In determining the MACT

floor, the EPA is not limited merely to

examining emissions test data from the

best performing sources and calculating

the numeric mean of such sources’

emission rates, because the test data

may not translate directly to truly

achievable standards. Rather, the

Agency has taken alternative

approaches to establishing MACT floors

in the past, depending on the type,

quality, and applicability of available

emissions information. (See 62 FR

49051, 49060 (September 18, 1997)

(describing various alternatives)).

Among the standard options the EPA

may follow is to establish the floor in

consideration of the emissions control

technology used by the best performing

sources. Specifically, the Agency could

establish the new source MACT floor

based on the technology employed by

the best-controlled similar source and

the existing source MACT floor based

on the technology used by the average

of the best-performing 12 percent of

sources (or, in the case of categories

with fewer than 30 sources, the average

of the best-performing five sources). The

EPA would then calculate a numeric

MACT emission limit that is achievable

in practice by sources employing that

technology, in view of process and air

pollution control device variability.

The EPA followed this technologydriven approach in the present

rulemaking. Available emissions

information indicates that both

baghouses and ESP’s are equally

effective in controlling PM emissions

from glass-melting furnaces, and that

the best performing sources in the wool

fiberglass source category employ such

technology. Accordingly, the Agency

determined that either of these

technologies, when well-designed and

well-operated, would form the basis of

the MACT floor for controlling

emissions from glass-melting furnaces

in this source category. The EPA then

sought, consistent with the CAA, to

express the MACT floor in terms of a

numeric emissions limit. To do so, it

evaluated existing test data from wool

fiberglass facilities controlling glassmelting furnace emissions with

baghouses and ESP’s. Because the

measured emission rates varied, even

though each of the sources had welloperated and maintained air pollution

control equipment, the Agency

concluded that the measured rates were

indicative of equipment and process

variability. The EPA therefore

established the MACT floor at an

emission level achievable by the best

performing technology, after accounting

for normal operating variability.

The Agency’s approach in this

rulemaking to determine the applicable

MACT floors is consistent with the

CAA. The CAA requires a standard that

is ‘‘achievable’’ (42 U.S.C. 112(d)(2)

(‘‘Emission standards * * * shall

require the maximum degree of

reductions in emissions * * * that the

Administrator * * * determines is

achievable * * * ’’)). However, the

commenter’s insistence on setting the

MACT floor based solely on a numeric

average would require the Agency to

establish a standard that, in light of

normal and unavoidable control

equipment and process variability,

would not be achievable consistently by

the best performing sources in the

category. The EPA’s method in the

present rulemaking, by contrast, heeds

Congress’s attention to achievability and

is a prudent exercise of the discretion

the CAA grants the Agency ‘‘to use its

best engineering judgment in collecting

and analyzing the (available emissions)

data, and in assessing the data’s

comprehensiveness, accuracy, and

variability, in order to determine which

sources achieve the best emission

reductions.’’ (59 FR 29196, 29199 (June

6, 1994)) (emphasis added). See also

National Lime Association v. E.P.A., 627

F.2d 416, 431 n. 46 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (‘‘to

be achievable, we think a uniform

standard must be capable of being met

under most adverse conditions which

can reasonably be expected to recur’’).

Comment: Two commenters stated

that the EPA is not limited to setting

emission limits at the MACT floors and

thermal and catalytic incinerators could

provide cost-effective 98 to 99 percent

emission reductions on RS forming,

curing, and cooling and FA forming and

curing. According to one commenter,

the emission limits for flame attenuation

manufacturing lines are much too high;

more appropriate formaldehyde

emission limits are 0.068–0.078 lb/ton.

Another commenter stated that

emissions as low as 0.02 kg/Mg for RS

manufacturing, 0.13 kg/Mg for heavydensity flame attenuation
31704 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

manufacturing, and 0.11 kg/Mg for pipe

flame attenuation manufacturing could

be achieved if catalytic oxidation were

used to control forming, curing, and

cooling processes. According to one

commenter, the EPA should also

consider other creative control

technology applications, for example,

ducting multiple sources, such as

forming and curing, to a single control

unit at a much lower cost than separate

controls on individual process units

while achieving 98–99 percent

reduction in forming and curing oven

emissions. One commenter also stated

that the EPA has ignored the use of

carbon-and zeolite-based concentrators,

which can reduce exhaust volumes

thereby reducing the size and cost of

required control devices. According to

this commenter, such concentrators can

reduce exhaust volumes to be treated at

least tenfold and sometimes much

greater allowing the use of small control

devices after forming and curing.

Alternatively, the concentrated exhaust

could be ducted to the curing oven or

curing oven control device, thus

allowing for low-cost control of

emissions from the entire wool

fiberglass manufacturing line.

Response: Even though incineration is

demonstrated on rotary spin curing

ovens and is the MACT floor for new

and existing rotary spin curing ovens,

incineration is not demonstrated for

rotary spin forming or for flame

attenuation forming or flame attenuation

curing. Further, concentrators are not

demonstrated in this industry for any

process. Although not demonstrated, the

EPA considered the beyond-the-floor

control option of incineration for both

rotary spin forming and flame

attenuation forming and curing

processes. According to an analysis of

the cost effectiveness of beyond-thefloor controls for RS manufacturing

lines, the cost effectiveness of

controlling formaldehyde emissions

from forming using incineration is

$183,000 per ton of formaldehyde

reduction. On FA manufacturing lines

producing heavy-density products, the

cost effectiveness of controlling

formaldehyde emissions using

incineration is $1.95 million per ton of

formaldehyde reduction for forming

processes and $13.5 million per ton of

formaldehyde reduction for curing

processes. On FA manufacturing lines

producing pipe products, the cost

effectiveness of controlling

formaldehyde emissions using

incineration is $2.7 million per ton of

formaldehyde reduction for forming

processes and $42.3 million per ton of

formaldehyde reduction for curing

processes. At this time, the EPA

considers that the cost effectiveness of

these beyond-the-floor controls are not

reasonable. Therefore, the EPA rejected

beyond-the-floor controls and set

emission standards at the MACT floor

level.

Comment: A commenter stated that,

in light of formaldehyde classification

as a Class B1, probable human

carcinogen, the EPA should reconsider

its use of the largest emission rates as

the emission limits for the flame

attenuation lines producing pipe

products and heavy-density products.

According to one commenter, the

emission limits for flame attenuation

manufacturing lines are much too high

with more appropriate formaldehyde

emission limits being 0.068–0.078 lb/

ton. Another commenter stated that

emissions as low as 0.13 kg/Mg for

heavy-density flame attenuation

manufacturing, and 0.11 kg/Mg for pipe

flame attenuation manufacturing could

be achieved if catalytic oxidation were

used to control forming, curing, and

cooling processes.

Response: In establishing emission

limits for affected FA manufacturing

lines, the EPA followed the approach

used for glass-melting furnaces. Process

modifications constitute the pollution

control technology used by the best

performing sources, and each of the

facilities currently producing pipe

insulation and heavy density products

employ an identical level of process

modifications on their FA

manufacturing lines. Nevertheless, the

measured emission rates of

formaldehyde from these sources varied.

Because the same degree of pollution

control had different emission rates, the

Agency concluded that operational

variability accounted for the differences

and factored such variability into the

promulgated emission standard by

setting the MACT floor at a level

achievable in practice by sources using

the identified technology.

Comment: Because the EPA is

allowing averaging of emissions across

the various units making up the

manufacturing line, one commenter

stated that this tends to increase

emissions above those associated with

emission limits on separate process

units and that EPA should set emission

limits more stringent than the sum of

the floor limits rather than allow

averaging.

Response: In setting emission limits

for rotary spin and flame attenuation

manufacturing lines, the EPA used

available emissions data for each

process unit (forming, curing, and

cooling for rotary spin lines, and

forming and curing for flame

attenuation lines) to determine the

appropriate MACT floor for each

process unit in the line. The Agency

then summed emissions from the MACT

floors to create a resultant line-based

MACT floor emission limit. Therefore,

the EPA disagrees that these ‘‘line’’

limits are less stringent than the limits

that would have been established for

individual process units if the source

subject to MACT had been defined more

narrowly. For instance, because the

MACT floor for cooling on rotary spin

lines and for curing on flame

attenuation lines is no control, the EPA

may not have set emission limits for

these sources if limits were set on a

unit-by-unit basis. Thus, potentially

higher emissions would have been

allowed than are currently being

allowed under this rule.

C. Monitoring

Comment: Several comments were

received concerning the use of bag leak

detectors for monitoring baghouses used

to control emissions from glass-melting

furnaces. One commenter stated that

because the industry standard for

sensitivity of bag leak detectors is

0.0005 gr/dscf, the sensitivity cited in

the rule should be changed from 0.0004

gr/dscf to 0.0005 gr/dscf.

According to another commenter, the

requirements to install and operate bag

leak detectors according to EPA

guidance (§ 63.1384(b)(5)) will be

difficult to enforce. The commenter

further stated that if EPA wants the

guidance to be followed, it should be

contained in a rule; if not, it should be

in the preamble as recommended

practice.

Another commenter asked if a source

would be in violation of the standard if

the alarm on the bag leak detector is

activated more than 10 percent of the

total operating time during a 6-month

block reporting period.

Response: After reviewing technical

data from a supplier of dust detection

equipment and reviewing other EPA

standards that require bag leak detectors

for consistency, EPA has modified the

required sensitivity level to ‘‘0.0044 gr/

dscf or less.’’ This change does not alter

the intended function of the bag leak

detector, and is consistent with the

industry standard for sensitivity and

other EPA standards.

Although EPA understands, as the

one commenter indicated, that

enforcement may be more difficult,

there are currently no performance

specifications available for bag leak

detectors. EPA guidance on the use of

triboelectric bag leak detectors has been

developed and is cited in the rule along

with information on its availability.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31705

In the proposed and final rules, the

source would not be in violation of the

standard if the alarm on the bag leak

detector is activated more than 10

percent of the total operating time

during a 6-month block reporting

period. The EPA issued a supplemental

proposal (64 FR 7149, February 12,

1999) for wool fiberglass and other

source categories which, along with

other compliance issues, deals with the

question as to the existence of a

violation when the bag leak detector

alarm is activated and how it is

enforced. The EPA will consider all

comments on the supplemental

proposal and will amend this final rule

in a future action as appropriate.

Comment: For clarity with State

agencies, one commenter recommended

that the requirement in § 63.1386(e) to

‘‘continuously monitor and record’’ as it

applies to glass pull rate be defined to

mean to install, operate and maintain

pull rate monitoring and recording

equipment per the written operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

Response: Based on additional

information provided by the

commenter, EPA learned that the

commenter would like the rule to clarify

the monitoring and recording frequency

associated with continuous monitors for

glass pull rate. According to the

commenter, the process is very steady

and there is not a need for minute-byminute monitoring and recordkeeping.

EPA has revised the rule to require that

on existing glass-melting furnaces with

continuous monitors and on all new

glass-melting furnaces, the glass pull

rate must be monitored and recorded on

an hourly basis and every 4 hours an

average is to be calculated for purposes

of determining compliance. At any time

that a 4-hour average pull rate exceeds

the average pull rate established during

the performance test by greater than 20

percent, corrective action must be

initiated within 1 hour. If a 20 percent

or more exceedance of the pull rate

occurs for more than 5 percent of the

total operating time in the 6-month

block reporting period, a QIP is

required. The final rule requires the

owner operate the glass-melting furnace

so that the glass pull rate does not

exceed, by more than 20 percent, the

established maximum glass pull rate for

more than 10 percent of the total

operating time in the 6-month block

reporting period.

As a result of this comment, the EPA

examined the other monitoring

provisions and made similar clarifying

changes throughout the monitoring

section as they pertain to monitoring

frequency and averaging period.

D. Performance Tests

Comment: One commenter

recommended revisions to the

monitoring requirements of

§ 63.1386(g)(2) to clarify that if changes

are made in the binder formulation that

would not result in an increase in HAP

emissions, such as the use of resin

extenders, additional emissions testing

is not required. The commenter

explained that binder formulations are

developed and controlled centrally by

technical experts at each company and

are not subject to modification at each

plant. According to this commenter,

normal practice is for any new binder

formulation to be supported by

additional emission tests. For reasons of

material availability and cost reduction,

the commenter explained that the

binder formulation specification allows

some flexibility for substituting resin

extenders. During subsequent

discussions with the commenter, it was

explained that extenders replace

components of the binder and that urea

and lignin are used as extenders and

replace some of the formaldehyde and

phenol in the binder. The extenders act

to dilute the binder and because the rate

of application of the extended binder

does not change, the emissions of

formaldehyde and phenol are decreased.

Response: Based on this comment as

well as additional information supplied

by the commenter on the use of

extenders and their effects on

formaldehyde emissions, the EPA has

revised the rule to permit the addition

of the extenders urea and lignin in the

binder formulations without the need to

perform additional emission testing.

During discussions to obtain

additional information from the

commenter on this issue, the commenter

was also concerned that the occasional

switching of resin suppliers where the

resins are made to the same

specifications, may be interpreted by

enforcement agencies as a change in

resin and require additional emissions

testing. The EPA does not intend for

additional emission testing to be

performed where a facility switches

resin suppliers as long as the resin from

the new supplier is made to the same

product specifications as that used

during the performance test.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is intended to be an

organized file of the administrative

records compiled by EPA. The docket is

a dynamic file because information is

added throughout the rulemaking

development. The docketing system is

intended to allow members of the public

and industries involved to readily

identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

rulemaking process. Along with the

proposed and promulgated standards

and their preambles, the docket will

contain the record in case of judicial

review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the

CAA.) The location of the official

rulemaking record, including all public

comments received on the proposed

rule, is in the ADDRESSES section at the

beginning of this preamble.

B. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine if a regulatory action is

‘‘significant,’’ and therefore subject to

review by OMB and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that is likely to result in

a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligation of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this final

rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under the terms of the Executive

Order and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

C. Executive Order 12875—Enhancing

the Intergovernmental Partnership

Under Executive Order 12875, the

EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates

a mandate upon a State, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

the EPA consults with those

governments. If the EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 12875

requires the EPA to provide to the OMB

a description of the extent of the EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, copies of any written
31706 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires the EPA

to develop an effective process

permitting elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

Today’s rule does not create a

mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose

any enforceable duties on State, local or

tribal governments, because they do not

own or operate any sources that would

be subject to this rule. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 1(a) of

Executive Order 12875 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

the EPA generally must prepare a

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires the EPA

to identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows the EPA to adopt an alternative

other than the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

if the Administrator publishes with the

final rule an explanation why that

alternative was not adopted. Before the

EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, it

must have developed under section 203

of the UMRA a small government

agency plan. The plan must provide for

notifying potentially affected small

governments, enabling officials of

affected small governments to have

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. The

EPA has determined that the total

nationwide capital cost for the standard

is approximately $19.5 million and the

annual nationwide cost is

approximately $6.3 million/yr. This rule

is based partially on pollution

prevention alternatives and on a

manufacturing line approach. It is the

least costly and burdensome approach

for industry since the purchase of addon control devices will be avoided by

most of the industry. The only costs to

State and local governments are those

associated with implementing this

standard through the permitting

process, and these costs are recouped

through permit fees. Thus, today’s rule

is not subject to the requirements of

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In

addition, the EPA has determined that

this rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments

because it does not impose any

enforceable duties on small

governments; such governments own or

operate no sources subject to these rules

and therefore would not be required to

purchase control systems to meet the

requirements of the rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. EPA has also determined

that this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because no company that owns

sources in the source category meets the

criteria for small business. The Small

Business Administration defines ‘‘small

business,’’ as the term applies to SIC

3296, as a firm with fewer than 750

employees. None of the firms in the

industry have fewer than 750 employees

and, thus, are not small businesses by

this criterion.

F. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This action is not

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2). This rule will be effective June

14, 1999.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The OMB has approved the

information collection requirements

contained in this rule under the

provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq. and has assigned OMB control

number 2060–0359.

The information collection

requirements include the notification,

reporting, and recordkeeping

requirements of the NESHAP general

provisions, authorized under section

114 of the CAA, which are mandatory

for all owners or operators subject to

national emission standards. All

information submitted to the EPA for

which a claim of confidentiality is made

is safeguarded according to Agency

policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

This rule does not require any

notifications or reports beyond those

required by the general provisions.

Subpart NNN does require additional

records of specific information needed

to determine compliance with the rule.

These include records of: (1) Any bag

leak detection system alarm, including

the date and time, with a brief

explanation of the cause of the alarm

and the corrective action taken; (2) ESP

parameter values, such as secondary

voltage for each electrical field

including any deviation outside the

limits established during the

performance test and a brief explanation

of the cause of the deviation and the

corrective action taken; (3) air

temperature above the surface of the

molten glass of a cold top electric

furnace that does not use an add-on

control device for PM emission control,

including any air temperature above 120

°C (250 °F) with a brief explanation of

the cause and the corrective action

taken; (4) operating parameter(s) for

uncontrolled glass melting furnace (that
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31707

is not a cold top electric furnace) that

does not use an add-on control device

for the control of PM emissions

including any exceedance of the level

established during the performance test

and a brief explanation of the cause of

the exceedance and the corrective action

taken; (5) the free-formaldehyde content

of the resin being used; (6) the

formulation of the binder being used; (7)

the product LOI and product density for

each 8-hour period on a RS or FA

manufacturing line subject to the

NESHAP; (8) forming process

modification parameter(s), including

any period when the parameter level(s)

deviate from the level(s) established

during the performance test and a brief

explanation of the cause of the deviation

and the corrective action taken; (9)

pressure drop, liquid flow rate, and

information on chemical additives to

the scrubbing liquid, including any

period when there is a deviation from

the levels established during the

performance tests and a brief

explanation of the cause and the

corrective action taken; (10) incinerator

operating temperature, including any 3-

hour block period when the temperature

falls below the level established during

the performance test, and the results of

the annual inspection, including any

problems discovered during the

inspection, with a brief explanation of

the cause and, the corrective action

taken; and (11) glass pull rate, including

any period when the pull rate exceeds

the average pull rate established during

the performance test by more than 20

percent, with a brief explanation of the

cause of the exceedance, the corrective

action taken, and the time the corrective

action was initiated. All records

documenting corrective actions must

include the time of the alarm, deviation,

or exceedance and the time that the

corrective action is initiated as well as

when the cause of the alarm, deviation,

or exceedance is corrected. Each of

these information requirements is

needed to determine compliance with

the standards.

The annual public reporting and

recordkeeping burden to industry for

this collection is estimated at 17,100

labor hours per year at an annual cost

of $548,000. This estimate includes a

one-time performance test and report

(with repeat tests where needed); onetime preparation of a startup, shutdown,

and malfunction plan with semiannual

reports of any event in which the

procedures in the plan were not

followed; semiannual excess emissions

reports; notifications; and

recordkeeping. The annualized capital

cost associated with monitoring

requirements is estimated at $41,000.

The operation and maintenance cost is

estimated at $3,000/yr.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purpose of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

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 EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

The EPA is amending the table in 40

CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR

control numbers issued by OMB for

various regulations to list the

information requirements contained in

this final rule.

H. Pollution Prevention Act

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

states that pollution should be

prevented or reduced at the source

whenever feasible. The emission

standards for RS and FA manufacturing

lines subject to the standard are

formulated as line standards, i.e., the

sum of the individual forming, curing,

and cooling MACT floor emission levels

for RS manufacturing lines and forming

and curing MACT floor emission levels

for certain FA manufacturing lines. By

formulating the standard as a line

standard, tradeoffs are allowed for

existing facilities that will accomplish

the same environmental results at lower

costs and will encourage process

modifications and pollution prevention

alternatives. According to the industry,

new RS manufacturing lines may be

able to meet the line standard without

the use of costly incinerators with their

energy and other environmental

impacts, such as increased nitrogen

oxides (NOX) and sulfur oxides (SOX)

emissions, by incorporating pollution

prevention measures, such as binder

reformulation and improved binder

application efficiency. Pollution

prevention alternatives will also

increase binder utilization efficiency

and reduce production costs for

industry. In selecting the format of the

emission standard for emissions from

manufacturing lines, the EPA

considered various alternatives such as

setting separate emission limits for each

process, i.e., forming, curing, and

cooling. A line standard gives the

industry greater flexibility in complying

with the emission limits and is the least

costly because industry can avoid the

capital and annual operating and

maintenance costs associated with the

purchase of add-on control equipment

by using pollution prevention measures.

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104–113 (March

7, 1996), directs the EPA to use

voluntary consensus standards in

regulatory and procurement activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (such

as materials specifications, test

methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) which are developed

or adopted by voluntary consensus

standard bodies. Where available and

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards are not used by

EPA, the Act requires the Agency to

provide Congress, through the OMB, an

explanation for not using such

standards. This section summarizes the

EPA’s response to the requirements of

the NTTAA for the analytical test

methods promulgated as part of this

final rule.

Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA

conducted searches to identify

voluntary consensus standards for the

EPA’s emissions sampling and analysis

reference methods and industry

recommended materials analysis

procedures cited in this rule. Candidate

voluntary consensus standards for

materials analysis were identified for

product loss on ignition (LOI), product

density, and free formaldehyde content.

Consensus comments provided by

industry experts were that the candidate

standards did not meet industry

materials analysis requirements.

Therefore, EPA has determined these

voluntary consensus standards were

impractical for the wool fiberglass

manufacturing NESHAP. The EPA, in

consultation with the North American

Insulation Manufacturers Association

(NAIMA), has formulated industryspecific materials analysis, consensus

standards which are promulgated in this

rule.
31708 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

The EPA search to identify voluntary

consensus standards for the EPA’s

emissions sampling and analysis

reference methods cited in this rule

identified 17 candidate standards that

appeared to have possible use in lieu of

EPA standard reference methods.

However, after reviewing available

standards, EPA determined that 12 of

the candidate consensus standards

identified for measuring emissions of

the HAPs or surrogates subject to

emission standards in the rule would be

not be practical due to lack of

equivalency, documentation, validation

data and other important technical and

policy considerations. Five of the

remaining candidate consensus

standards are new standards under

development that EPA plans to follow,

review and consider adopting at a later

date. This rule requires standard EPA

emission test methods known to the

industry and States. Approved

alternative methods also may be used

with prior EPA approval.

J. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule

that(1) is determined to be

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

concerns the environmental health or

safety risk that the EPA has reason to

believe may have a disproportionate

effect on children. If the regulatory

action meets both criteria, the Agency

must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects of the planned rule on

children and explain why the planned

regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered by the

Agency.

The EPA interprets Executive Order

13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on

health or safety risks, such that the

analysis required under section 5–501 of

the Order has the potential to influence

the regulation. This final rule is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

because it is not an economically

significant regulatory action as defined

by Executive Order 12866, and it is

based on technology performance and

not on health or safety risks.

K. Executive Order 13084—Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, the

EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statue, that significantly

or uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or the EPA consults with

those governments. If the EPA complies

by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires the EPA to provide to the OMB,

in a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires the EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. No wool

fiberglass manufacturing facilities are

owned or operated by Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Environmental protection, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirement

40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Wool

fiberglass manufacturing.

Dated: May 13, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, parts 9 and 63 of title 40,

chapter I of the Code of Federal

Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 9—OMB APPROVALS UNDER

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

1. The authority citation for part 9

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y;

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1,

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq.,

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657,

11023, 11048.

2. In § 9.1, the table is amended by

adding new entries in numerical order

under the indicated heading to read as

follows:

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control

No.

* * * * *

National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants for Source Categories 3

* * * * *

63.1383 ..................................... 2060–0359

63.1386 ..................................... 2060–0359

63.1387 ..................................... 2060–0359

* * * * *

3The ICRs referenced in this section of the

table encompass the applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,

which are not independent information collection requirements.

* * * * *

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

3. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

4. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart NNN consisting of §§ 63.1380

through 63.1399 to read as follows:

Subpart NNN—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

Sec.

63.1380 Applicability.

63.1381 Definitions.

63.1382 Emission standards.

63.1383 Monitoring requirements.

63.1384 Performance test requirements.

63.1385 Test methods and procedures.

63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements.

63.1387 Compliance dates.

63.1388—63.1399 [Reserved]

Table 1 to Subpart NNN of part 63—

Applicability of general provisions (40 CFR

part 63, subpart A) to subpart NNN.

Appendix A to Subpart NNN of part 63—

Method for the determination of LOI

Appendix B to Subpart NNN of part 63—Free

formaldehyde analysis of insulation

resins by hydroxylamine hydrochloride

Appendix C to Subpart NNN of part 63—

Method for the determination of product

density
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31709

Subpart NNN—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

§ 63.1380 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(b) and (c) of this section, the

requirements of this subpart apply to

the owner or operator of each wool

fiberglass manufacturing facility that is

a major source or is located at a facility

that is a major source.

(b) The requirements of this subpart

apply to emissions of hazardous air

pollutants (HAPs), as measured

according to the methods and

procedures in this subpart, emitted from

the following new and existing sources

at a wool fiberglass manufacturing

facility subject to this subpart:

(1) Each new and existing glassmelting furnace located at a wool

fiberglass manufacturing facility;

(2) Each new and existing rotary spin

wool fiberglass manufacturing line

producing a bonded wool fiberglass

building insulation product; and

(3) Each new and existing flame

attenuation wool fiberglass

manufacturing line producing a bonded

pipe product and each new flame

attenuation wool fiberglass

manufacturing line producing a bonded

heavy-density product.

(c) The requirements of this subpart

do not apply to a wool fiberglass

manufacturing facility that the owner or

operator demonstrates to the

Administrator is not a major source as

defined in § 63.2.

(d) The provisions of this part 63,

subpart A that apply and those that do

not apply to this subpart are specified

in Table 1 of this subpart.

§ 63.1381 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

(PM) emissions.

Bonded means wool fiberglass to

which a phenol-formaldehyde binder

has been applied.

Building insulation means bonded

wool fiberglass insulation, having a loss

on ignition of less than 8 percent and a

density of less than 32 kilograms per

cubic meter (kg/m3) (2 pounds per cubic

foot [lb/ft3]).

Cold top electric furnace means an

all-electric glass-melting furnace that

operates with a temperature of 120 °C

(250 °F) or less as measured at a location

46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches)

above the molten glass surface.

Flame attenuation means a process

used to produce wool fiberglass where

molten glass flows by gravity from

melting furnaces, or pots, to form

filaments that are drawn down and

attenuated by passing in front of a highvelocity gas burner flame.

Glass-melting furnace means a unit

comprising a refractory vessel in which

raw materials are charged, melted at

high temperature, refined, and

conditioned to produce molten glass.

The unit includes foundations,

superstructure and retaining walls, raw

material charger systems, heat

exchangers, melter cooling system,

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 glass-melting

furnace.

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.

Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) means

any air pollutant listed in or pursuant to

section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act.

Heavy-density product means bonded

wool fiberglass insulation manufactured

on a flame attenuation manufacturing

line and having a loss on ignition of 11

to 25 percent and a density of 8 to 48

kg/m3 (0.5 to 3 lb/ft 3).

Incinerator means an enclosed air

pollution control device that uses

controlled flame combustion to convert

combustible materials to

noncombustible gases.

Loss on ignition (LOI) means the

percent decrease in weight of wool

fiberglass after it has been ignited. The

LOI is used to monitor the weight

percent of binder in wool fiberglass.

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 March 31,

1997.

Pipe product means bonded wool

fiberglass insulation manufactured on a

flame attenuation manufacturing line

and having a loss on ignition of 8 to 14

percent and a density of 48 to 96 kg/m 3

(3 to 6 lb/ft3).

Rotary spin means a process used to

produce wool fiberglass building

insulation by forcing molten glass

through numerous small orifices in the

side wall of a spinner to form

continuous glass fibers that are then

broken into discrete lengths by highvelocity air flow. Any process used to

produce bonded wool fiberglass

building insulation by a process other

than flame attenuation is considered

rotary spin.

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 on a rotary spin

manufacturing line or on a flame

attenuation manufacturing line.

§ 63.1382 Emission standards

(a) Emission limits—(1) Glass-melting

furnaces. On and after the date the

initial performance test is completed or

required to be completed under § 63.7 of

this part, whichever date is earlier, the

owner or operator shall not discharge or

cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere in excess of 0.25 kilogram

(kg) of particulate matter (PM) per

megagram (Mg) (0.5 pound [lb] of PM

per ton) of glass pulled for each new or

existing glass-melting furnace.

(2) Rotary spin manufacturing lines.

On and after the date the initial

performance test is completed or

required to be completed under § 63.7 of

this part, whichever date is earlier, the

owner or operator shall not discharge or

cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere in excess of:

(i) 0.6 kg of formaldehyde per

megagram (1.2 lb of formaldehyde per

ton) of glass pulled for each existing

rotary spin manufacturing line; and

(ii) 0.4 kg of formaldehyde per

megagram (0.8 lb of formaldehyde per

ton) of glass pulled for each new rotary

spin manufacturing line.

(3) Flame attenuation manufacturing

lines. On and after the date the initial

performance test is completed or

required to be completed under § 63.7 of

this part, whichever date is earlier, the

owner or operator shall not discharge or

cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere in excess of:

(i) 3.9 kg of formaldehyde per

megagram (7.8 lb of formaldehyde per

ton) of glass pulled for each new flame

attenuation manufacturing line that

produces heavy-density wool fiberglass;

and

(ii) 3.4 kg of formaldehyde per

megagram (6.8 lb of formaldehyde per

ton) of glass pulled from each existing
31710 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

or new flame attenuation manufacturing

line that produces pipe product wool

fiberglass.

(b) Operating limits. On and after the

date on which the performance test

required to be conducted by §§ 63.7 and

63.1384 is completed, the owner or

operator must operate all affected

control equipment and processes

according to the following requirements.

(1)(i) The owner or operator must

initiate corrective action within 1 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) The owner or operator must

implement a Quality Improvement Plan

(QIP) consistent with the compliance

assurance monitoring provisions of 40

CFR part 64, subpart D when the bag

leak detection system alarm is sounded

for more than 5 percent of the total

operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period.

(2)(i) The owner or operator must

initiate corrective action within 1 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 § 63.1384 and complete

corrective actions in a timely manner

according to the procedures in the

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan.

(ii) The owner or operator must

implement a QIP 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

§ 63.1384 for more than 5 percent of the

total operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period.

(iii) The owner or operator must

operate the ESP such that the monitored

ESP parameter is not outside the limit(s)

established during the performance test

as specified in § 63.1384 for more than

10 percent of the total operating time in

a 6-month block reporting period.

(3)(i) The owner or operator must

initiate corrective action within 1 hour

when any 3-hour block average

temperature of a cold top electric

furnace as measured at a location 46 to

61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above

the molten glass surface, exceeds 120 °C

(250 °F) and complete corrective actions

in a timely manner according to the

procedures in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(ii) The owner or operator of a cold

top electric furnace must implement a

QIP consistent with the compliance

assurance monitoring provisions of 40

CFR part 64, subpart D when the

temperature, as measured at a location

46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24 inches)

above the molten glass surface, exceeds

120 °C (250 °F) for more than 5 percent

of the total operating time in a 6-month

block reporting period.

(iii) The owner or operator must

operate the cold top electric furnace

such that the temperature does not

exceed 120 °C (250 °F) as measured at

a location 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to 24

inches) above the molten glass surface,

for more than 10 percent of the total

operating time in a 6-month reporting

period.

(4)(i) The owner or operator must

initiate corrective action within 1 hour

when any 3-hour block average value for

the monitored parameter(s) for a glassmelting furnace, which uses no add-on

controls and which is not a cold top

electric furnace, is outside the limit(s)

established during the performance test

as specified in § 63.1384 and complete

corrective actions in a timely manner

according to the procedures in the

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan.

(ii) The owner or operator must

implement a QIP consistent with the

compliance assurance monitoring

provisions of 40 CFR Part 64 subpart D

when the monitored parameter(s) is

outside the limit(s) established during

the performance test as specified in

§ 63.1384 for more than 5 percent of the

total operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period.

(iii) The owner or operator must

operate a glass-melting furnace, which

uses no add-on controls and which is

not a cold top electric furnace, such that

the monitored parameter(s) is not

outside the limit(s) established during

the performance test as specified in

§ 63.1384 for more than 10 percent of

the total operating time in a 6-month

block reporting period.

(5)(i) The owner or operator must

initiate corrective action within 1 hour

when the average glass pull rate of any

4-hour block period for 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

§ 63.1384, 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) The owner or operator must

implement a QIP consistent with the

compliance assurance monitoring

provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D

when the glass pull rate exceeds, by

more than 20 percent, the average glass

pull rate established during the

performance test as specified in

§ 63.1384 for more than 5 percent of the

total operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period.

(iii) The owner or operator must

operate each glass-melting furnace such

that the glass pull rate does not exceed,

by more than 20 percent, the average

glass pull rate established during the

performance test as specified in

§ 63.1384 for more than 10 percent of

the total operating time in a 6-month

block reporting period.

(6) The owner or operator must

operate each incinerator used to control

formaldehyde emissions from forming

or curing such that any 3-hour block

average temperature in the firebox does

not fall below the average established

during the performance test as specified

in § 63.1384.

(7)(i) The owner or operator must

initiate corrective action within 1 hour

when the average pressure drop, liquid

flow rate, or chemical feed rate for any

3-hour block period is outside the limits

established during the performance tests

as specified in § 63.1384 for each wet

scrubbing control device and complete

corrective actions in a timely manner

according to the procedures in the

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan.

(ii) The owner or operator must

implement a QIP consistent with the

compliance assurance monitoring

provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D

when any scrubber parameter is outside

the limit(s) established during the

performance test as specified in

§ 63.1384 for more than 5 percent of the

total operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period.

(iii) The owner or operator must

operate each scrubber such that each

monitored parameter is not outside the

limit(s) established during the

performance test as specified in

§ 63.1384 for more than 10 percent of

the total operating time in a 6-month

block reporting period.

(8)(i) The owner or operator must

initiate corrective action within 1 hour

when the monitored process parameter

level(s) is outside the limit(s)

established during the performance test

as specified in § 63.1384 for the process

modification(s) used to control

formaldehyde emissions and complete

corrective actions in a timely manner

according to the procedures in the

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan.

(ii) The owner or operator must

implement a QIP consistent with the

compliance assurance monitoring

provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31711

when the process parameter(s) is

outside the limit(s) established during

the performance test as specified in

§ 63.1384 for more than 5 percent of the

total operating time in a 6-month block

reporting period.

(iii) The owner or operator must

operate the process modifications such

that the monitored process parameter(s)

is not outside the limit(s) established

during the performance test as specified

in § 63.1384 for more than 10 percent of

the total operating time in a 6-month

block reporting period.

(9) The owner or operator must use a

resin in the formulation of binder such

that the free-formaldehyde content of

the resin used does not exceed the freeformaldehyde range contained in the

specification for the resin used during

the performance test as specified in

§ 63.1384.

(10) The owner or operator must use

a binder formulation that does not vary

from the specification and operating

range established and used during the

performance test as specified in

§ 63.1384. For the purposes of this

standard, adding or increasing the

quantity of urea and/or lignin in the

binder formulation does not constitute a

change in the binder formulation.

§ 63.1383 Monitoring requirements.

On and after the date on which the

performance test required to be

conducted by §§ 63.7 and 63.1384 is

completed, the owner or operator must

monitor all affected control equipment

and processes according to the

following requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of each

wool fiberglass manufacturing facility

must prepare for each glass-melting

furnace, rotary spin manufacturing line,

and flame attenuation manufacturing

line subject to the provisions of this

subpart, a written operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan. The

plan must be submitted to the

Administrator for review and approval

as part of the application for a part 70

permit. The plan must include the

following information:

(1) Procedures for the proper

operation and maintenance of process

modifications and add-on control

devices used to meet the emission limits

in § 63.1382;

(2) Procedures for the proper

operation and maintenance of

monitoring devices used to determine

compliance, including quarterly

calibration and certification of accuracy

of each monitoring device according to

the manufacturers’s instructions; and

(3) Corrective actions to be taken

when process parameters or add-on

control device parameters deviate from

the limit(s) established during initial

performance tests.

(b)(1) Where a baghouse is used to

control PM emissions from a glassmelting furnace, the owner or operator

shall install, calibrate, maintain, and

continuously operate a bag leak

detection system.

(i) The bag leak detection system must

be certified by the manufacturer to be

capable of detecting PM emissions at

concentrations of 10 milligrams per

actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per

actual cubic foot) or less.

(ii) The bag leak detection system

sensor must produce output of relative

PM emissions.

(iii) The bag leak detection system

must be equipped with an alarm system

that will sound automatically when an

increase in relative PM emissions over

a preset level is detected and the alarm

must be located such that it can be

heard by the appropriate plant

personnel.

(iv) For positive pressure fabric filter

systems, a bag leak detection system

must be installed in each baghouse

compartment or cell. If a negative

pressure or induced air baghouse is

used, the bag leak detection system

must be installed downstream of the

baghouse. Where multiple bag leak

detection systems are required (for

either type of baghouse), the system

instrumentation and alarm may be

shared among the monitors.

(v) A triboelectric bag leak detection

system shall be installed, operated,

adjusted, and maintained in a manner

consistent with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency guidance, ‘‘Fabric

Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance’’

(EPA–454/R–98–015, September 1997).

Other bag leak detection systems shall

be installed, operated, adjusted, and

maintained in a manner consistent with

the manufacturer’s written

specifications and recommendations.

(vi) Initial adjustment of the system

shall, at a minimum, consist of

establishing the baseline output by

adjusting the range and the averaging

period of the device and establishing the

alarm set points and the alarm delay

time.

(vii) Following the initial adjustment,

the owner or operator shall not adjust

the range, averaging period, alarm

setpoints, or alarm delay time except as

detailed in the approved operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan

required under paragraph (a) of this

section. In no event shall the range be

increased by more than 100 percent or

decreased more than 50 percent over a

365-day period unless a responsible

official as defined in § 63.2 of the

general provisions in subpart A of this

part certifies that the baghouse has been

inspected and found to be in good

operating condition.

(2) The operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan required by paragraph

(a) of this section must specify

corrective actions to be followed in the

event of a bag leak detection system

alarm. Example corrective actions that

may be included in the plan include the

following:

(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter

media, or any other conditions that may

cause an increase in emissions.

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter

media.

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter

media, or otherwise repairing the

control device.

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse

compartment.

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection

system probe, or otherwise repairing the

bag leak detection system.

(vi) Shutting down the process

producing the particulate emissions.

(c)(1) Where an ESP is used to control

PM emissions from a glass-melting

furnace, the owner or operator must

monitor the ESP according to the

procedures in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(2)The operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan for the ESP must

contain the following information:

(i) The ESP operating parameter(s),

such as secondary voltage of each

electrical field, to be monitored and the

minimum and/or maximum value(s)

that will be used to identify any

operational problems;

(ii) A schedule for monitoring the ESP

operating parameter(s);

(iii) Recordkeeping procedures,

consistent with the recordkeeping

requirements of § 63.1386, to show that

the ESP operating parameter(s) is within

the limit(s) established during the

performance test; and

(iv) Procedures for the proper

operation and maintenance of the ESP.

(d) The owner or operator must

measure and record at least once per

shift the temperature 46 to 61

centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the

surface of the molten glass in a cold top

electric furnace that does not use any

add-on controls to control PM

emissions.

(e)(1) Where a glass-melting furnace is

operated without an add-on control

device to control PM emissions, the

owner or operator must monitor the

glass-melting furnace according to the

procedures in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(2) The operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan for the glass-melting
31712 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

furnace must contain the following

information:

(i) The operating parameter(s) to be

monitored and the minimum and/or

maximum value(s) that will be used to

identify any operational problems;

(ii) A schedule for monitoring the

operating parameter(s) of the glassmelting furnace;

(iii) Recordkeeping procedures,

consistent with the recordkeeping

requirements of § 63.1386, to show that

the glass-melting furnace parameter(s) is

within the limit(s) established during

the performance test; and

(iv) Procedures for the proper

operation and maintenance of the glassmelting furnace.

(f)(1) The owner or operator of an

existing glass-melting furnace equipped

with continuous glass pull rate monitors

must monitor and record the glass pull

rate on an hourly basis. For glassmelting furnaces that are not equipped

with continuous glass pull rate

monitors, the glass pull rate must be

monitored and recorded once per day.

(2) On any new glass-melting furnace,

the owner or operator must install,

calibrate, and maintain a continuous

glass pull rate monitor that monitors

and records on an hourly basis the glass

pull rate.

(g)(1) The owner or operator who uses

an incinerator to control formaldehyde

emissions from forming or curing shall

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate

a monitoring device that continuously

measures and records the operating

temperature in the firebox of each

incinerator.

(2) The owner or operator must

inspect each incinerator at least once

per year according to the procedures in

the operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan. At a minimum, an

inspection must include the following:

(i) Inspect all burners, pilot

assemblies, and pilot sensing devices for

proper operation and clean pilot sensor,

as necessary;

(ii) Ensure proper adjustment of

combustion air and adjust, as necessary;

(iii) Inspect, when possible, internal

structures, for example, baffles, to

ensure structural integrity per the

design specifications;

(iv) Inspect dampers, fans, and

blowers for proper operation;

(v) Inspect for proper sealing;

(vi) Inspect motors for proper

operation;

(vii) Inspect combustion chamber

refractory lining and clean and repair/

replace lining, as necessary;

(viii) Inspect incinerator shell for

corrosion and/or hot spots;

(ix) For the burn cycle that follows the

inspection, document that the

incinerator is operating properly and

make any necessary adjustments; and

(x) Generally observe that the

equipment is maintained in good

operating condition.

(xi) Complete all necessary repairs as

soon as practicable.

(h) The owner or operator who uses

a wet scrubbing control device to

control formaldehyde emissions must

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate

monitoring devices that continuously

monitor and record the gas pressure

drop across each scrubber and scrubbing

liquid flow rate to each scrubber

according to the procedures in the

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan. The pressure drop

monitor is to be certified by its

manufacturer to be accurate within ±250

pascals (±1 inch water gauge) over its

operating range, and the flow rate

monitor is to be certified by its

manufacturer to be accurate within ±5

percent over its operating range. The

owner or operator must also

continuously monitor and record the

feed rate of any chemical(s) added to the

scrubbing liquid.

(i)(1) The owner or operator who uses

process modifications to control

formaldehyde emissions must establish

a correlation between formaldehyde

emissions and a process parameter(s) to

be monitored.

(2) The owner or operator must

monitor the established parameter(s)

according to the procedures in the

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan.

(3)The owner or operator must

include as part of their operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan the

following information:

(i) Procedures for the proper operation

and maintenance of the process;

(ii) Process parameter(s) to be

monitored to demonstrate compliance

with the applicable emission limits in

§ 63.1382. Examples of process

parameters include LOI, binder solids

content, and binder application rate;

(iii) Correlation(s) between process

parameter(s) to be monitored and

formaldehyde emissions;

(iv) A schedule for monitoring the

process parameter(s); and

(v) Recordkeeping procedures,

consistent with the recordkeeping

requirements of § 63.1386, to show that

the process parameter value(s)

established during the performance test

is not exceeded.

(j) The owner or operator must

monitor and record the freeformaldehyde content of each resin

shipment received and used in the

formulation of binder.

(k) The owner or operator must

monitor and record the formulation of

each batch of binder used.

(l) The owner or operator must

monitor and record at least once every

8 hours, the product LOI and product

density of each bonded wool fiberglass

product manufactured.

(m) For all control device and process

operating parameters measured during

the initial performance tests, the owners

or operators of glass-melting furnaces,

rotary spin manufacturing lines or flame

attenuation manufacturing lines subject

to this subpart may change the limits

established during the initial

performance tests if additional

performance testing is conducted to

verify that, at the new control device or

process parameter levels, they comply

with the applicable emission limits in

§ 63.1382. The owner or operator shall

conduct all additional performance tests

according to the procedures in this part

63, subpart A and in § 63.1384.

§ 63.1384 Performance test requirements.

(a) The owner or operator subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall

conduct a performance test to

demonstrate compliance with the

applicable emission limits in § 63.1382.

Compliance is demonstrated when the

emission rate of the pollutant is equal to

or less than each of the applicable

emission limits in § 63.1382. The owner

or operator shall conduct the

performance test according to the

procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart

A and in this section.

(1) All monitoring systems and

equipment must be installed,

operational, and calibrated prior to the

performance test.

(2) Unless a different frequency is

specified in this section, the owner or

operator must monitor and record

process and/or add-on control device

parameters at least every 15 minutes

during the performance tests. The

arithmetic average for each parameter

must be calculated using all of the

recorded measurements for the

parameter.

(3) During each performance test, the

owner or operator must monitor and

record the glass pull rate for each glassmelting furnace and, if different, the

glass pull rate for each rotary spin

manufacturing line and flame

attenuation manufacturing line. Record

the glass pull rate every 15 minutes

during any performance test required by

this subpart and determine the

arithmetic average of the recorded

measurements for each test run and

calculate the average of the three test

runs.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31713

(4) The owner or operator shall

conduct a performance test for each

existing and new glass-melting furnace.

(5) During the performance test, the

owner or operator of a glass-melting

furnace controlled by an ESP shall

monitor and record the ESP parameter

level(s), as specified in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan, and

establish the minimum and/or

maximum value(s) that will be used to

demonstrate compliance after the initial

performance test.

(6) During the performance test, the

owner or operator of a cold top electric

furnace that is not equipped with an

add-on control device for PM emissions

control, must monitor and record the

temperature 46 to 61 centimeters (18 to

24 inches) above the molten glass

surface to ensure that the maximum

temperature does not exceed 120 °C

(250 °F).

(7) During the performance test, the

owner or operator of a glass melting

furnace (other than a cold top electric

furnace) that is not equipped with an

add-on control device for PM emissions

control, must monitor and record the

furnace parameter level, and establish

the minimum and/or maximum value(s)

that will be used to demonstrate

compliance after the initial performance

test.

(8) The owner or operator must

conduct a performance test for each

rotary spin manufacturing line, subject

to this subpart, while producing the

building insulation with the highest LOI

expected to be produced on that line;

and for each flame attenuation

manufacturing line, subject to this

subpart, while producing the heavydensity product or pipe product with

the highest LOI expected to be produced

on the affected line.

(9) The owner or operator of each

rotary spin manufacturing line and

flame attenuation manufacturing line

regulated by this subpart must conduct

performance tests using the resin with

the highest free-formaldehyde content.

During the performance test of each

rotary spin manufacturing line and

flame attenuation manufacturing line

regulated by this subpart, the owner or

operator shall monitor and record the

free-formaldehyde content of the resin,

the binder formulation used, and the

product LOI and density.

(10) During the performance test, the

owner or operator of a rotary spin

manufacturing line or flame attenuation

manufacturing line who plans to use

process modifications to comply with

the emission limits in § 63.1382 must

monitor and record the process

parameter level(s), as specified in the

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan, which will be used to

demonstrate compliance after the initial

performance test.

(11) During the performance test, the

owner or operator of a rotary spin

manufacturing line or flame attenuation

manufacturing line who plans to use a

wet scrubbing control device to comply

with the emission limits in § 63.1382

must continuously monitor and record

the pressure drop across the scrubber,

the scrubbing liquid flow rate, and

addition of any chemical to the

scrubber, including the chemical feed

rate, and establish the minimum and/or

maximum value(s) that will be used to

determine compliance after the initial

performance test.

(12) During the performance test, the

owner or operator of a rotary spin

manufacturing line or affected flame

attenuation manufacturing line shall

continuously record the operating

temperature of each incinerator and

record the average during each 1-hour

test; the average operating temperature

of the three 1-hour tests shall be used to

monitor compliance.

(13) Unless disapproved by the

Administrator, an owner or operator of

a rotary spin or flame attenuation

manufacturing line regulated by this

subpart may conduct short-term

experimental production runs using

binder formulations or other process

modifications where the process

parameter values would be outside

those established during performance

tests without first conducting

performance tests. Such runs must not

exceed 1 week in duration unless the

Administrator approves a longer period.

The owner or operator must notify the

Administrator and postmark or deliver

the notification at least 15 days prior to

commencement of the short-term

experimental production runs. The

Administrator must inform the owner or

operator of a decision to disapprove or

must request additional information

prior to the date of the short-term

experimental production runs.

Notification of intent to perform an

experimental short-term production run

shall include the following information:

(i) The purpose of the experimental

production run;

(ii) The affected line;

(iii) How the established process

parameters will deviate from previously

approved levels;

(iv) The duration of the experimental

production run;

(v) The date and time of the

experimental production run; and

(vi) A description of any emission

testing to be performed during the

experimental production run.

(b) To determine compliance with the

PM emission limit for glass-melting

furnaces, use the following equation:

E C Q K

P = × × 1 (Eq. 1)

Where:

E = Emission rate of PM, kg/Mg (lb/ton)

of glass pulled;

C = Concentration of PM, g/dscm

(gr/dscf);

Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust

gases, dscm/h (dscf/h);

K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1

lb/7,000 gr); and

P = Average glass pull rate, Mg/h (tons/

h).

(c) To determine compliance with the

emission limit for formaldehyde for

rotary spin manufacturing lines and

flame attenuation forming processes,

use the following equation:

E C MW Q K K

K P = × × × ×× ×

1 2

3

6 10 (Eq. 2)

Where:

E = Emission rate of formaldehyde,

kg/Mg (lb/ton) of glass pulled;

C = Measured volume fraction of

formaldehyde, ppm;

MW = Molecular weight of

formaldehyde, 30.03 g/g-mol;

Q = Volumetric flow rate of exhaust

gases, dscm/h (dscf/h);

K1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1

lb/453.6 g);

K2 = Conversion factor, 1,000 L/m3 (28.3

L/ft3);

K3 = Conversion factor, 24.45 L/g-mol;

and

P = Average glass pull rate, Mg/h (tons/

h).

§ 63.1385 Test methods and procedures.

(a) The owner or operator shall use

the following methods to determine

compliance with the applicable

emission limits:

(1) Method 1 (40 CFR part 60,

appendix A) for the selection of the

sampling port location and number of

sampling ports;

(2) Method 2 (40 CFR part 60,

appendix A) for volumetric flow rate;

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

appendix A) for O2 and CO2 for diluent

measurements needed to correct the

concentration measurements to a

standard basis;

(4) Method 4 (40 CFR part 60,

appendix A) for moisture content of the

stack gas;

(5) Method 5 (40 CFR part 60,

appendix A) for the concentration of

PM. Each run shall consist of a

minimum run time of 2 hours and a

minimum sample volume of 60 dry

standard cubic feet (dscf). The probe
31714 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

and filter holder heating system may be

set to provide a gas temperature no

greater than 177 ±14 °C (350 ±25 °F);

(6) Method 316 or Method 318

(appendix A of this part) for the

concentration of formaldehyde. Each

run shall consist of a minimum run time

of 1 hour;

(7) Method contained in appendix A

of this subpart for the determination of

product LOI;

(8) Method contained in appendix B

of this subpart for the determination of

the free-formaldehyde content of resin;

(9) Method contained in appendix C

of this subpart for the determination of

product density;

(10) An alternative method, subject to

approval by the Administrator.

(b) Each performance test shall consist

of 3 runs. The owner or operator shall

use the average of the three runs in the

applicable equation for determining

compliance.

§ 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements.

(a) Notifications. As required by

§ 63.9(b) through (h) of this part, the

owner or operator shall submit the

following written initial notifications to

the Administrator:

(1) Notification for an area source that

subsequently increases its emissions

such that the source is a major source

subject to the standard;

(2) Notification that a source is subject

to the standard, where the initial startup

is before June 14, 2002.

(3) Notification that a source is subject

to the standard, where the source is new

or has been reconstructed, the initial

startup is after June 14, 2002, and for

which an application for approval of

construction or reconstruction is not

required;

(4) Notification of intention to

construct a new major source or

reconstruct a major 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 June

14, 2002, and for which an application

for approval or construction or

reconstruction is required (See

§ 63.9(b)(4) and (5) of this part);

(5) Notification of special compliance

obligations;

(6) Notification of performance test;

and (7) Notification of compliance

status.

(b) Performance test report. As

required by § 63.10(d)(2) of the general

provisions, the owner or operator shall

report the results of the initial

performance test as part of the

notification of compliance status

required in paragraph (a)(7) of this

section.

(c) Startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan and reports. (1) The

owner or operator shall develop and

implement a written plan as described

in § 63.6(e)(3) of this part that contains

specific procedures to be followed for

operating the source and maintaining

the source during periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction and a

program of corrective action for

malfunctioning process modifications

and control systems used to comply

with the standard. In addition to the

information required in § 63.6(e)(3), the

plan shall include:

(i) Procedures to determine and

record the cause of the malfunction and

the time the malfunction began and

ended;

(ii) Corrective actions to be taken in

the event of a malfunction of a control

device or process modification,

including procedures for recording the

actions taken to correct the malfunction

or minimize emissions; and

(iii) A maintenance schedule for each

control device and process modification

that is consistent with the

manufacturer’s instructions and

recommendations for routine and longterm maintenance.

(2) The owner or operator shall also

keep records of each event as required

by § 63.10(b) of this part and record and

report if an action taken during a

startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not

consistent with the procedures in the

plan as described in § 63.10(e)(3)(iv) of

this part.

(d) Recordkeeping. (1) As required by

§ 63.10(b) of this part, the owner or

operator shall maintain files of all

information (including all reports and

notifications) required by the general

provisions and this subpart:

(i) The owner or operator must retain

each record for at least 5 years following

the date of each occurrence,

measurement, maintenance, corrective

action, report, or record. The most

recent 2 years of records must be

retained at the facility. The remaining 3

years of records may be retained off site;

(ii) The owner or operator may retain

records on microfilm, on a computer, on

computer disks, on magnetic tape, or on

microfiche; and

(iii) The owner or operator may report

required information on paper or on a

labeled computer disk using commonly

available and EPA-compatible computer

software.

(2) In addition to the general records

required by § 63.10(b)(2) of this part, the

owner or operator shall maintain

records of the following information:

(i) Any bag leak detection system

alarms, including the date and time of

the alarm, when corrective actions were

initiated, the cause of the alarm, an

explanation of the corrective actions

taken, and when the cause of the alarm

was corrected;

(ii) ESP parameter value(s) used to

monitor ESP performance, including

any period when the value(s) deviated

from the established limit(s), the date

and time of the deviation, when

corrective actions were initiated, the

cause of the deviation, an explanation of

the corrective actions taken, and when

the cause of the deviation was corrected;

(iii) Air temperature above the molten

glass in an uncontrolled cold top

electric furnace, including any period

when the temperature exceeded 120 °C

(250 °F) at a location 46 to 61

centimeters (18 to 24 inches) above the

molten glass surface, the date and time

of the exceedance, when corrective

actions were initiated, the cause of the

exceedance, an explanation of the

corrective actions taken, and when the

cause of the exceedance was corrected;

(iv) Uncontrolled glass-melting

furnace (that is not a cold top electric

furnace) parameter value(s) used to

monitor furnace performance, including

any period when the value(s) exceeded

the established limit(s), the date and

time of the exceedance, when corrective

actions were initiated, the cause of the

exceedance, an explanation of the

corrective actions taken, and when the

cause of the exceedance was corrected;

(v) The formulation of each binder

batch and the LOI and density for each

product manufactured on a rotary spin

manufacturing line or flame attenuation

manufacturing line subject to the

provisions of this subpart, and the free

formaldehyde content of each resin

shipment received and used in the

binder formulation;

(vi) Process parameter level(s) for RS

and FA manufacturing lines that use

process modifications to comply with

the emission limits, including any

period when the parameter level(s)

deviated from the established limit(s),

the date and time of the deviation, when

corrective actions were initiated, the

cause of the deviation, an explanation of

the corrective actions taken, and when

the cause of the deviation was corrected;

(vii) Scrubber pressure drop,

scrubbing liquid flow rate, and any

chemical additive (including chemical

feed rate to the scrubber), including any

period when a parameter level(s)

deviated from the established limit(s),

the date and time of the deviation, when

corrective actions were initiated, the

cause of the deviation, an explanation of
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31715

the corrective actions taken, and when

the cause of the deviation was corrected;

(viii) Incinerator operating

temperature and results of periodic

inspection of incinerator components,

including any period when the

temperature fell below the established

average or the inspection identified

problems with the incinerator, the date

and time of the problem, when

corrective actions were initiated, the

cause of the problem, an explanation of

the corrective actions taken, and when

the cause of the problem was corrected;

(ix) Glass pull rate, including any

period when the pull rate exceeded the

average pull rate established during the

performance test by more than 20

percent, the date and time of the

exceedance, when corrective actions

were initiated, the cause of the

exceedance, an explanation of the

corrective actions taken, and when the

cause of the exceedance was corrected.

(e) Excess emissions report. As

required by § 63.10(e)(3)(v) of this part,

the owner or operator shall report

semiannually if measured emissions are

in excess of the applicable standard or

a monitored parameter deviates from the

levels established during the

performance test. The report shall

contain the information specified in

§ 63.10(c) of this part as well as the

additional records required by the

recordkeeping requirements of

paragraph (d) of this section. When no

deviations have occurred, the owner or

operator shall submit a report stating

that no excess emissions occurred

during the reporting period.

§ 63.1387 Compliance dates.

(a) Compliance dates. The owner or

operator subject to the provisions of this

subpart shall demonstrate compliance

with the requirements of this subpart by

no later than:

(1) June 14, 2002, for an existing glassmelting furnace, rotary spin

manufacturing line, or flame attenuation

manufacturing line; or

(2) Upon startup for a new glassmelting furnace, rotary spin

manufacturing line, or flame attenuation

manufacturing line.

(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. The owner or

operator shall submit a request for an

extension according to the procedures

in § 63.6(i)(3) of this part.

§§ 63.1388—63.1399 [Reserved]

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)–(a)(4) ............................ Applicability .................................. Yes.

63.1(a)(5) ....................................... ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.1(a)(6)–(a)(8) ............................ ....................................................... Yes.

63.1(a)(9) ....................................... ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.1(a)(10)–(a)(14) ........................ ....................................................... Yes.

63.1(b)(1)–(b)(3) ............................ Initial Applicability Determination Yes.

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

63.1(c)(3) ....................................... ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.1(c)(4)–(c)(5) ............................ ....................................................... Yes.

63.1(d) ........................................... ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.1(e) ........................................... Applicability of Permit Program .... Yes.

63.2 ................................................ Definitions ..................................... Yes .............. Additional definitions in § 63.1381.

63.3(a)–(c) ..................................... Units and Abbreviations ............... Yes.

63.4(a)(1)–(a)(3) ............................ Prohibited Activities ...................... Yes.

63.4(a)(4) ....................................... ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.4(a)(5) ....................................... ....................................................... Yes.

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

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

63.5(b)(1) ....................................... Existing, New, Reconstructed ...... Yes.

63.5(b)(2) ....................................... ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.5(b)(3)–(b)(6) ............................ ....................................................... Yes.

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

63.5(d) ........................................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.Yes.

63.5(e) ........................................... ....................................................... Yes.

63.5(f) ............................................ ....................................................... Yes.

63.6(a) ........................................... Compliance with Standards and

Maintenance Requirements.

Yes.

63.6(b)(1)–(b)(5) ............................ ....................................................... Yes.

63.6(b)(6) ....................................... ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.6(b)(7) ....................................... ....................................................... Yes.

63.6(c)(1) ....................................... Compliance Date for Existing

Sources.

Yes .............. §63.1387 specifies compliance dates.

63.6(c)(2) ....................................... ....................................................... Yes.

63.6(c)(3)–(c)(4) ............................ ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.6(c)(5) ....................................... ....................................................... Yes.

63.6(d) ........................................... ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.6(e)(1)–(e)(2) ............................ Operation & Maintenance ............ Yes .............. § 63.1383 specifies operations/maintenance plan.

63.6(e)(3) ....................................... Startup, Shutdown Malfunction

Plan.

Yes.

63.6(f)(1)–(f)(3) .............................. Compliance with Nonopacity

Emission Standards.

Yes.
31716 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /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

63.6(g)(1)–(g)(3) ............................ Alternative Nonopacity Standard Yes.

63.6(h) ........................................... Opacity/VE Standards .................. No ................ Subpart NNN-no COMS, VE or opacity standards.

63.6(i)(1)–(i)(14) ............................ Extension of Compliance ............. Yes.

63.6(i)(15) ...................................... ....................................................... No ............... [Reserved].

63.6(i)(16) ...................................... ....................................................... Yes.

63.6(j) ............................................ Exemption from Compliance ........ Yes.

63.7(a) ........................................... Performance Testing Requirements.Yes § 63.1384 has specific requirements.

63.7(b) ........................................... Notification .................................... Yes.

63.7(c) ........................................... Quality Assurance Program/Test

Plan.

Yes.

63.7(d) ........................................... Performance Testing Facilities ..... Yes.

63.7(e)(1)–(e)(4) ............................ Conduct of Performance Tests .... Yes.

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

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

63.7(h) ........................................... Waiver of Performance Tests ...... Yes.

63.8(a)(1)–(a)(2) ............................ Monitoring Requirements ............. Yes.

63.8(a)(3) ....................................... ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.8(a)(4) ....................................... ....................................................... Yes.

63.8(b) ........................................... Conduct of Monitoring .................. Yes.

63.8(c) ........................................... CMS Operation/Maintenance ....... Yes.

63.8(d) ........................................... Quality Control Program .............. Yes.

63.8(e) ........................................... Performance Evaluation for CMS Yes.

63.8(f) ............................................ Alternative Monitoring Method ..... Yes.

63.8(g) ........................................... Reduction of Monitoring Data ...... Yes.

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

63.9(b) ........................................... Initial Notifications ........................ Yes.

63.9(c) ........................................... Request for Compliance Extension.Yes.

63.9(d) ........................................... New Source Notification for Special Compliance Requirements.Yes.

63.9(e) ........................................... Notification of Performance Test Yes.

63.9(f) ............................................ Notification of VE/Opacity Test .... No ................ Opacity/VE tests not required.

63.9(g) ........................................... Additional CMS Notifications ........ Yes.

63.9(h)(1)–(h)(3) ............................ Notification of Compliance Status Yes.

63.9(h)(4) ....................................... ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.9(h)(5)–(h)(6) ............................ ....................................................... Yes.

63.9(i) ............................................ Adjustment of Deadlines .............. Yes.

63.9(j) ............................................ Change in Previous Information .. Yes.

63.10(a) ......................................... Recordkeeping/Reporting ............. Yes.

63.10(b) ......................................... General Requirements ................. Yes.

63.10(c)(1) ..................................... Additional CMS Recordkeeping ... Yes.

63.10(c)(2)–(c)(4) .......................... ....................................................... No ................ [Reserved].

63.10(c)(5)–(c)(8) .......................... ....................................................... Yes.

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

63.10(c)(10)–(15) ........................... ....................................................... Yes.

63.10(d)(1) ..................................... General Reporting Requirements Yes.

63.10(d)(2) ..................................... Performance Test Results ........... Yes.

63.10(d)(3) ..................................... Opacity or VE Observations ........ No ................ No limits for VE/opacity.

63.10(d)(4) ..................................... Progress Reports ......................... Yes.

63.10(d)(5) ..................................... Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction

Reports.

Yes.

63.10(e)(1)–(e)(3) .......................... Additional CMS Reports ............... Yes.

63.10(e)(4) ..................................... Reporting COM Data ................... No ............... COM not required.

63.10(f) .......................................... Waiver of Recordkeeping/Reporting.Yes.

63.11(a) ......................................... Control Device Requirements ...... Yes.

63.11(b) ......................................... Flares ........................................... No ............... Flares not applicable.

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

63.13 .............................................. State/Regional Addresses ............ Yes.

63.14 .............................................. Incorporation by Reference .......... No.

63.15 .............................................. Availability of Information ............. Yes.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31717

Appendix A to Subpart NNN of Part 63—

Method for the Determination of LOI

1. Purpose

The purpose of this test is to determine the

LOI of cured blanket insulation. The method

is applicable to all cured board and blanket

products.

2. Equipment

2.1 Scale sensitive to 0.1 gram.

2.2 Furnace designed to heat to at least

540 °C (1,000 °F) and controllable to ±10 °C

(50 °F).

2.3 Wire tray for holding specimen while

in furnace.

3. Procedure

3.1 Cut a strip along the entire width of

the product that will weigh at least 10.0

grams. Sample should be free of dirt or

foreign matter.

Note: Remove all facing from sample.

3.2 Cut the sample into pieces

approximately 12 inches long, weigh to the

nearest 0.1 gram and record. Place in wire

tray. Sample should not be compressed or

overhang on tray edges.

Note: On air duct products, remove

shiplaps and overspray.

3.3 Place specimen in furnace at 540 °C

(1,000 °F), ±10 °C (50 °F) for 15 to 20 minutes

to insure complete oxidation. After ignition,

fibers should be white and should not be

fused together.

3.4 Remove specimen from the furnace

and cool to room temperature.

3.5 Weigh cooled specimen and wire tray

to the nearest 0.1 gram. Deduct the weight of

the wire tray and then calculate the loss in

weight as a percent of the original specimen

weight.

Appendix B to Subpart NNN of Part 63—

Free Formaldehyde Analysis of Insulation

Resins by Hydroxylamine Hydrochloride

1. Scope

This method was specifically developed

for water-soluble phenolic resins that have a

relatively high free-formaldehyde (FF)

content such as insulation resins. It may also

be suitable for other phenolic resins,

especially those with a high FF content.

2. Principle

2.1 a. The basis for this method is the

titration of the hydrochloric acid that is

liberated when hydroxylamine hydrochloride

reacts with formaldehyde to form

formaldoxine:

HCHO + NH2OH:HCl ‰ CH2:NOH + H2O +

HCl

b. Free formaldehyde in phenolic resins is

present as monomeric formaldehyde,

hemiformals, polyoxymethylene

hemiformals, and polyoxymethylene glycols.

Monomeric formaldehyde and hemiformals

react rapidly with hydroxylamine

hydrochloride, but the polymeric forms of

formaldehyde must hydrolyze to the

monomeric state before they can react. The

greater the concentration of free

formaldehyde in a resin, the more of that

formaldehyde will be in the polymeric form.

The hydrolysis of these polymers is catalyzed

by hydrogen ions.

2.2 The resin sample being analyzed must

contain enough free formaldehyde so that the

initial reaction with hydroxylamine

hydrochloride will produce sufficient

hydrogen ions to catalyze the

depolymerization of the polymeric

formaldehyde within the time limits of the

test method. The sample should contain

approximately 0.3 grams free formaldehyde

to ensure complete reaction within 5

minutes.

3. Apparatus

3.1 Balance, readable to 0.01 g or better.

3.2 pH meter, standardized to pH 4.0

with pH 4.0 buffer and pH 7 with pH 7.0

buffer.

3.3 50-mL burette for 1.0 N sodium

hydroxide.

3.4 Magnetic stirrer and stir bars.

3.5 250-mL beaker.

3.6 50-mL graduated cylinder.

3.7 100-mL graduated cylinder.

3.8 Timer.

4. Reagents

4.1 Standardized 1.0 N sodium hydroxide

solution.

4.2 Hydroxylamine hydrochloride

solution, 100 grams per liter, pH adjusted to

4.00.

4.3 Hydrochloric acid solution, 1.0 N and

0.1 N.

4.4 Sodium hydroxide solution, 0.1 N.

4.5 50/50 v/v mixture of distilled water

and methyl alcohol.

5. Procedure

5.1 Determine the sample size as follows:

a. If the expected FF is greater than 2

percent, go to Part A to determine sample

size.

b. If the expected FF is less than 2 percent,

go to Part B to determine sample size.

c. Part A: Expected FF ≥ 2 percent.

Grams resin = 60/expected percent FF

i. The following table shows example

levels:

Expected % free formaldehyde Sample

size, grams

2 ................................................ 30.0

5 ................................................ 12.0

8 ................................................ 7.5

10 .............................................. 6.0

12 .............................................. 5.0

15 .............................................. 4.0

ii. It is very important to the accuracy of

the results that the sample size be chosen

correctly. If the milliliters of titrant are less

than 15 mL or greater than 30 mL, reestimate

the needed sample size and repeat the tests.

d. Part B: Expected FF < 2 percent

Grams resin = 30/expected percent FF

i. The following table shows example

levels:

Expected % free formaldehyde Sample

size, grams

2 ................................................ 15

1 ................................................ 30

0.5 ............................................. 60

ii. If the milliliters of titrant are less than

5 mL or greater than 30 mL, reestimate the

needed sample size and repeat the tests.

5.2 Weigh the resin sample to the nearest

0.01 grams into a 250-mL beaker. Record

sample weight.

5.3 Add 100 mL of the methanol/water

mixture and stir on a magnetic stirrer.

Confirm that the resin has dissolved.

5.4 Adjust the resin/solvent solution to

pH 4.0, using the prestandardized pH meter,

1.0 N hydrochloric acid, 0.1 N hydrochloric

acid, and 0.1 N sodium hydroxide.

5.5 Add 50 mL of the hydroxylamine

hydrochloride solution, measured with a

graduated cylinder. Start the timer.

5.6 Stir for 5 minutes. Titrate to pH 4.0

with standardized 1.0 N sodium hydroxide.

Record the milliliters of titrant and the

normality.

6. Calculations

% . FF mL sodium hydroxide normality

grams of sample = × × 3 003

7. Method Precision and Accuracy

Test values should conform to the

following statistical precision:

Variance = 0.005

Standard deviation = 0.07

95% Confidence Interval, for a single

determination = 0.2

8. Author

This method was prepared by K. K. Tutin

and M. L. Foster, Tacoma R&D Laboratory,

Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. (Principle written

by R. R. Conner.)

9. References

9.1 GPAM 2221.2.

9.2 PR&C TM 2.035.

9.3 Project Report, Comparison of Free

Formaldehyde Procedures, January 1990, K.

K. Tutin.
31718 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

Appendix C to Subpart NNN of Part 63—

Method for the Determination of Product

Density

1. Purpose

The purpose of this test is to determine the

product density of cured blanket insulation.

The method is applicable to all cured board

and blanket products.

2. Equipment

One square foot (12 in. by 12 in.) template,

or templates that are multiples of one square

foot, for use in cutting insulation samples.

3. Procedure

3.1 Obtain a sample at least 30 in. long

across the machine width. Sample should be

free of dirt or foreign matter.

3.2 Lay out the cutting pattern according

to the plant’s written procedure for the

designated product.

3.2 Cut samples using one square foot (or

multiples of one square foot) template.

3.3 Weigh product and obtain area weight

(lb/ft2).

3.4 Measure sample thickness.

3.5 Calculate the product density:

Density (lb/ft3) = area weight (lb/ft2)/

thickness (ft)

5. Appendix A to part 63 is amended

by adding in numerical order methods

316 and 318 to read as follows:

Appendix A To Part 63—Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 316—Sampling and Analysis for

Formaldehyde Emissions From Stationary

Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool

Fiberglass Industries

1.0 Introduction

This method is applicable to the

determination of formaldehyde, CAS Registry

number 50–00–0, from stationary sources in

the mineral wool and wool fiber glass

industries. High purity water is used to

collect the formaldehyde. The formaldehyde

concentrations in the stack samples are

determined using the modified

pararosaniline method. Formaldehyde can be

detected as low as 8.8 × 1010 lbs/cu ft (11.3

ppbv) or as high as 1.8 × 103 lbs/cu ft

(23,000,000 ppbv), at standard conditions

over a 1 hour sampling period, sampling

approximately 30 cu ft.

2.0 Summary of Method

Gaseous and particulate pollutants are

withdrawn isokinetically from an emission

source and are collected in high purity water.

Formaldehyde present in the emissions is

highly soluble in high purity water. The high

purity water containing formaldehyde is then

analyzed using the modified pararosaniline

method. Formaldehyde in the sample reacts

with acidic pararosaniline, and the sodium

sulfite, forming a purple chromophore. The

intensity of the purple color, measured

spectrophotometrically, provides an accurate

and precise measure of the formaldehyde

concentration in the sample.

3.0 Definitions

See the definitions in the General

Provisions of this Subpart.

4.0 Interferences

Sulfite and cyanide in solution interfere

with the pararosaniline method. A procedure

to overcome the interference by each

compound has been described by Miksch, et

al.

5.0 Safety. (Reserved)

6.0 Apparatus and Materials

6.1 A schematic of the sampling train is

shown in Figure 1. This sampling train

configuration is adapted from EPA Method 5,

40 CFR part 60, appendix A, procedures.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31719
31720 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

The sampling train consists of the

following components: probe nozzle,

probe liner, pitot tube, differential

pressure gauge, impingers, metering

system, barometer, and gas density

determination equipment.

6.1.1 Probe Nozzle: Quartz, glass, or

stainless steel with sharp, tapered (30° angle)

leading edge. The taper shall be on the

outside to preserve a constant inner diameter.

The nozzle shall be buttonhook or elbow

design. A range of nozzle sizes suitable for

isokinetic sampling should be available in

increments of 0.15 cm (1⁄16 in), e.g., 0.32 to

1.27 cm (1⁄8 to 1⁄2 in), or larger if higher

volume sampling trains are used. Each nozzle

shall be calibrated according to the procedure

outlined in Section 10.1.

6.1.2 Probe Liner: Borosilicate glass or

quartz shall be used for the probe liner. The

probe shall be maintained at a temperature of

120°C ± 14°C (248°F ± 25°F).

6.1.3 Pitot Tube: The pitot tube shall be

Type S, as described in Section 2.1 of EPA

Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or

any other appropriate device. The pitot tube

shall be attached to the probe to allow

constant monitoring of the stack gas velocity.

The impact (high pressure) opening plane of

the pitot tube shall be even with or above the

nozzle entry plane (see Figure 2–6b, EPA

Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A)

during sampling. The Type S pitot tube

assembly shall have a known coefficient,

determined as outlined in Section 4 of EPA

Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

6.1.4 Differential Pressure Gauge: The

differential pressure gauge shall be an

inclined manometer or equivalent device as

described in Section 2.2 of EPA Method 2, 40

CFR part 60, appendix A. One manometer

shall be used for velocity-head reading and

the other for orifice differential pressure

readings.

6.1.5 Impingers: The sampling train

requires a minimum of four impingers,

connected as shown in Figure 1, with ground

glass (or equivalent) vacuum-tight fittings.

For the first, third, and fourth impingers, use

the Greenburg-Smith design, modified by

replacing the tip with a 1.3 cm inside

diameters (1⁄2 in) glass tube extending to 1.3

cm (1⁄2 in) from the bottom of the flask. For

the second impinger, use a Greenburg-Smith

impinger with the standard tip. Place a

thermometer capable of measuring

temperature to within 1°C (2°F) at the outlet

of the fourth impinger for monitoring

purposes.

6.1.6 Metering System: The necessary

components are a vacuum gauge, leak-free

pump, thermometers capable of measuring

temperatures within 3°C (5.4°F), dry-gas

meter capable of measuring volume to within

1 percent, and related equipment as shown

in Figure 1. At a minimum, the pump should

be capable of 4 cfm free flow, and the dry gas

meter should have a recording capacity of 0–

999.9 cu ft with a resolution of 0.005 cu ft.

Other metering systems may be used which

are capable of maintaining sample volumes

to within 2 percent. The metering system

may be used in conjunction with a pitot tube

to enable checks of isokinetic sampling rates.

6.1.7 Barometer: The barometer may be

mercury, aneroid, or other barometer capable

of measuring atmospheric pressure to within

2.5 mm Hg (0.1 in Hg). In many cases, the

barometric reading may be obtained from a

nearby National Weather Service Station, in

which case the station value (which is the

absolute barometric pressure) is requested

and an adjustment for elevation differences

between the weather station and sampling

point is applied at a rate of minus 2.5 mm

Hg (0.1 in Hg) per 30 m (100 ft) elevation

increase (rate is plus 2.5 mm Hg per 30 m

(100 ft) of elevation decrease).

6.1.8 Gas Density Determination

Equipment: Temperature sensor and pressure

gauge (as described in Sections 2.3 and 2.3

of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix

A), and gas analyzer, if necessary (as

described in EPA Method 3, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A). The temperature sensor ideally

should be permanently attached to the pitot

tube or sampling probe in a fixed

configuration such that the top of the sensor

extends beyond the leading edge of the probe

sheath and does not touch any metal.

Alternatively, the sensor may be attached just

prior to use in the field. Note, however, that

if the temperature sensor is attached in the

field, the sensor must be placed in an

interference-free arrangement with respect to

the Type S pitot openings (see Figure 2–7,

EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

As a second alternative, if a difference of no

more than 1 percent in the average velocity

measurement is to be introduced, the

temperature gauge need not be attached to

the probe or pitot tube.

6.2 Sample Recovery

6.2.1 Probe Liner: Probe nozzle and

brushes; bristle brushes with stainless steel

wire handles are required. The probe brush

shall have extensions of stainless steel,

Teflon TM, or inert material at least as long as

the probe. The brushes shall be properly

sized and shaped to brush out the probe

liner, the probe nozzle, and the impingers.

6.2.2 Wash Bottles: One wash bottle is

required. Polyethylene, Teflon TM, or glass

wash bottles may be used for sample

recovery.

6.2.3 Graduated Cylinder and/or Balance:

A graduated cylinder or balance is required

to measure condensed water to the nearest 1

ml or 1 g. Graduated cylinders shall have

division not >2 ml. Laboratory balances

capable of weighing to ± 0.5 g are required.

6.2.4 Polyethylene Storage Containers:

500 ml wide-mouth polyethylene bottles are

required to store impinger water samples.

6.2.5 Rubber Policeman and Funnel: A

rubber policeman and funnel are required to

aid the transfer of material into and out of

containers in the field.

6.3 Sample Analysis

6.3.1 Spectrophotometer—B&L 70, 710,

2000, etc., or equivalent; 1 cm pathlength

cuvette holder.

6.3.2 Disposable polystyrene cuvettes,

pathlengh 1 cm, volume of about 4.5 ml.

6.3.3 Pipettors—Fixed-volume Oxford

pipet (250 μl; 500 μl; 1000 μl); adjustable

volume Oxford or equivalent pipettor 1–5 ml

model, set to 2.50 ml.

6.3.4 Pipet tips for pipettors above.

6.3.5 Parafilm, 2° wide; cut into about 1’’

squares.

7.0 Reagents

7.1 High purity water: All references to

water in this method refer to high purity

water (ASTM Type I water or equivalent).

The water purity will dictate the lower limits

of formaldehyde quantification.

7.2 Silica Gel: Silica gel shall be indicting

type, 6–16 mesh. If the silica gel has been

used previously, dry at 175°C (350°F) for 2

hours before using. New silica gel may be

used as received. Alternatively, other types of

desiccants (equivalent or better) may be used.

7.3 Crushed Ice: Quantities ranging from

10–50 lbs may be necessary during a

sampling run, depending upon ambient

temperature. Samples which have been taken

must be stored and shipped cold; sufficient

ice for this purpose must be allowed.

7.4 Quaternary ammonium compound

stock solution: Prepare a stock solution of

dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride (98

percent minimum assay, reagent grade) by

dissolving 1.0 gram in 1000 ml water. This

solution contains nominally 1000 μg/ml

quaternary ammonium compound, and is

used as a biocide for some sources which are

prone to microbial contamination.

7.5 Pararosaniline: Weigh 0.16 grams

pararosaniline (free base; assay of 95 percent

or greater, C.I. 42500; Sigma P7632 has been

found to be acceptable) into a 100 ml flask.

Exercise care, since pararosaniline is a dye

and will stain. Using a wash bottle with highpurity water, rinse the walls of the flask. Add

no more than 25 ml water. Then, carefully

add 20 ml of concentrated hydrochloric acid

to the flask. The flask will become warm after

the addition of acid. Add a magnetic stir bar

to the flask, cap, and place on a magnetic

stirrer for approximately 4 hours. Then, add

additional water so the total volume is 100

ml. This solution is stable for several months

when stored tightly capped at room

temperature.

7.6 Sodium sulfite: Weigh 0.10 grams

anhydrous sodium sulfite into a 100 ml flask.

Dilute to the mark with high purity water.

Invert 15–20 times to mix and dissolve the

sodium sulfite. This solution must be

prepared fresh every day.

7.7 Formaldehyde standard solution:

Pipet exactly 2.70 ml of 37 percent

formaldehyde solution into a 1000 ml

volumetric flask which contains about 500

ml of high-purity water. Dilute to the mark

with high-purity water. This solution

contains nominally 1000 μg/ml of

formaldehyde, and is used to prepare the

working formaldehyde standards. The exact

formaldehyde concentration may be

determined if needed by suitable

modification of the sodium sulfite method

(Reference: J.F. Walker, Formaldehyde (Third

Edition), 1964.). The 1000 μg/ml

formaldehyde stock solution is stable for at

least a year if kept tightly closed, with the

neck of the flask sealed with Parafilm. Store

at room temperature.

7.8 Working formaldehyde standards:

Pipet exactly 10.0 ml of the 1000 μg/ml

formaldehyde stock solution into a 100 ml

volumetric flask which is about half full of

high-purity water. Dilute to the mark with

high-purity water, and invert 15–20 times to

mix thoroughly. This solution contains

nominally 100 μg/ml formaldehyde. Prepare
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31721

the working standards from this 100 μg/ml

standard solution and using the Oxford

pipets:

Working standard, μ/mL

μL or 100

μg/mL solution

Volumetric

flask volume

(dilute to

mark with

water)

0.250 ................. 250 100

0.500 ................. 500 100

1.00 ................... 1000 100

2.00 ................... 2000 100

3.00 ................... 1500 50

The 100 μg/ml stock solution is stable for 4

weeks if kept refrigerated between analyses.

The working standards (0.25–3.00 μg/ml)

should be prepared fresh every day,

consistent with good laboratory practice for

trace analysis. If the laboratory water is not

of sufficient purity, it may be necessary to

prepare the working standards every day.

The laboratory must establish that the

working standards are stable—DO NOT

assume that your working standards are

stable for more than a day unless you have

verified this by actual testing for several

series of working standards.

8.0 Sample Collection

8.1 Because of the complexity of this

method, field personnel should be trained in

and experienced with the test procedures in

order to obtain reliable results.

8.2 Laboratory Preparation

8.2.1 All the components shall be

maintained and calibrated according to the

procedure described in APTD–0576, unless

otherwise specified.

8.2.2 Weigh several 200 to 300 g portions

of silica gel in airtight containers to the

nearest 0.5 g. Record on each container the

total weight of the silica gel plus containers.

As an alternative to preweighing the silica

gel, it may instead be weighed directly in the

impinger or sampling holder just prior to

train assembly.

8.3 Preliminary Field Determinations

8.3.1 Select the sampling site and the

minimum number of sampling points

according to EPA Method 1, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, or other relevant criteria.

Determine the stack pressure, temperature,

and range of velocity heads using EPA

Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. A

leak-check of the pitot lines according to

Section 3.1 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, must be performed. Determine

the stack gas moisture content using EPA

Approximation Method 4,40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, or its alternatives to establish

estimates of isokinetic sampling rate settings.

Determine the stack gas dry molecular

weight, as described in EPA Method 2, 40

CFR part 60, appendix A, Section 3.6. If

integrated EPA Method 3, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, sampling is used for molecular

weight determination, the integrated bag

sample shall be taken simultaneously with,

and for the same total length of time as, the

sample run.

8.3.2 Select a nozzle size based on the

range of velocity heads so that it is not

necessary to change the nozzle size in order

to maintain isokinetic sampling rates below

28 l/min (1.0 cfm). During the run do not

change the nozzle. Ensure that the proper

differential pressure gauge is chosen for the

range of velocity heads encountered (see

Section 2.2 of EPA Method 2, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A).

8.3.3 Select a suitable probe liner and

probe length so that all traverse points can

be sampled. For large stacks, to reduce the

length of the probe, consider sampling from

opposite sides of the stack.

8.3.4 A minimum of 30 cu ft of sample

volume is suggested for emission sources

with stack concentrations not greater than

23,000,000 ppbv. Additional sample volume

shall be collected as necessitated by the

capacity of the water reagent and analytical

detection limit constraint. Reduced sample

volume may be collected as long as the final

concentration of formaldehyde in the stack

sample is greater than 10 (ten) times the

detection limit.

8.3.5 Determine the total length of

sampling time needed to obtain the identified

minimum volume by comparing the

anticipated average sampling rate with the

volume requirement. Allocate the same time

to all traverse points defined by EPA Method

1, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. To avoid

timekeeping errors, the length of time

sampled at each traverse point should be an

integer or an integer plus 0.5 min.

8.3.6 In some circumstances (e.g., batch

cycles) it may be necessary to sample for

shorter times at the traverse points and to

obtain smaller gas-volume samples. In these

cases, careful documentation must be

maintained in order to allow accurate

calculations of concentrations.

8.4 Preparation of Collection Train

8.4.1 During preparation and assembly of

the sampling train, keep all openings where

contamination can occur covered with

TeflonTM film or aluminum foil until just

prior to assembly or until sampling is about

to begin.

8.4.2 Place 100 ml of water in each of the

first two impingers, and leave the third

impinger empty. If additional capacity is

required for high expected concentrations of

formaldehyde in the stack gas, 200 ml of

water per impinger may be used or additional

impingers may be used for sampling.

Transfer approximately 200 to 300 g of preweighed silica gel from its container to the

fourth impinger. Care should be taken to

ensure that the silica gel is not entrained and

carried out from the impinger during

sampling. Place the silica gel container in a

clean place for later use in the sample

recovery. Alternatively, the weight of the

silica gel plus impinger may be determined

to the nearest 0.5 g and recorded.

8.4.3 With a glass or quartz liner, install

the selected nozzle using a Viton-A O-ring

when stack temperatures are <260°C (500°F)

and a woven glass-fiber gasket when

temperatures are higher. See APTD–0576 for

details. Other connection systems utilizing

either 316 stainless steel or TeflonTM ferrules

may be used. Mark the probe with heatresistant tape or by some other method to

denote the proper distance into the stack or

duct for each sampling point.

8.4.4 Assemble the train as shown in

Figure 1. During assembly, a very light

coating of silicone grease may be used on

ground-glass joints of the impingers, but the

silicone grease should be limited to the outer

portion (see APTD–0576) of the ground-glass

joints to minimize silicone grease

contamination. If necessary, TeflonTM tape

may be used to seal leaks. Connect all

temperature sensors to an appropriate

potentiometer/display unit. Check all

temperature sensors at ambient temperatures.

8.4.5 Place crushed ice all around the

impingers.

8.4.6 Turn on and set the probe heating

system at the desired operating temperature.

Allow time for the temperature to stabilize.

8.5 Leak-Check Procedures

8.5.1 Pre-test Leak-check: Recommended,

but not required. If the tester elects to

conduct the pre-test leak-check, the following

procedure shall be used.

8.5.1.1 After the sampling train has been

assembled, turn on and set probe heating

system at the desired operating temperature.

Allow time for the temperature to stabilize.

If a Viton-a O-ring or other leak-free

connection is used in assembling the probe

nozzle to the probe liner, leak-check the train

at the sampling site by plugging the nozzle

and pulling a 381 mm Hg (15 in Hg) vacuum.

Note: A lower vacuum may be used,

provided that the lower vacuum is not

exceeded during the test.

If a woven glass fiber gasket is used, do not

connect the probe to the train during the

leak-check. Instead, leak-check the train by

first attaching a carbon-filled leak-check

impinger to the inlet and then plugging the

inlet and pulling a 381 mm Hg (15 in Hg)

vacuum. (A lower vacuum may be used if

this lower vacuum is not exceeded during the

test.) Next connect the probe to the train and

leak-check at about 25 mm Hg (1 in Hg)

vacuum. Alternatively, leak-check the probe

with the rest of the sampling train in one step

at 381 mm Hg (15 in Hg) vacuum. Leakage

rates in excess of (a) 4 percent of the average

sampling rate or (b) 0.00057 m3/min (0.02

cfm), whichever is less, are unacceptable.

8.5.1.2 The following leak-check

instructions for the sampling train described

in APTD–0576 and APTD–0581 may be

helpful. Start the pump with the fine-adjust

valve fully open and coarse-valve completely

closed. Partially open the coarse-adjust valve

and slowly close the fine-adjust valve until

the desired vacuum is reached. Do not

reverse direction of the fine-adjust valve, as

liquid will back up into the train. If the

desired vacuum is exceeded, either perform

the leak-check at this higher vacuum or end

the leak-check, as described below, and start

over.

8.5.1.3 When the leak-check is

completed, first slowly remove the plug from

the inlet to the probe. When the vacuum

drops to 127 mm (5 in) Hg or less,

immediately close the coarse-adjust valve.

Switch off the pumping system and reopen

the fine-adjust valve. Do not reopen the fineadjust valve until the coarse-adjust valve has

been closed to prevent the liquid in the

impingers from being forced backward in the

sampling line and silica gel from being

entrained backward into the third impinger.
31722 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

8.5.2 Leak-checks During Sampling Run:

8.5.2.1 If, during the sampling run, a

component change (e.g., impinger) becomes

necessary, a leak-check shall be conducted

immediately after the interruption of

sampling and before the change is made. The

leak-check shall be done according to the

procedure described in Section 10.3.3, except

that it shall be done at a vacuum greater than

or equal to the maximum value recorded up

to that point in the test. If the leakage rate

is found to be no greater than 0.0057 m3/min

(0.02 cfm) or 4 percent of the average

sampling rate (whichever is less), the results

are acceptable. If a higher leakage rate is

obtained, the tester must void the sampling

run.

Note: Any correction of the sample volume

by calculation reduces the integrity of the

pollutant concentration data generated and

must be avoided.

8.5.2.2 Immediately after component

changes, leak-checks are optional. If

performed, the procedure described in

section 8.5.1.1 shall be used.

8.5.3 Post-test Leak-check:

8.5.3.1 A leak-check is mandatory at the

conclusion of each sampling run. The leakcheck shall be done with the same

procedures as the pre-test leak-check, except

that the post-test leak-check shall be

conducted at a vacuum greater than or equal

to the maximum value reached during the

sampling run. If the leakage rate is found to

be no greater than 0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm)

or 4 percent of the average sampling rate

(whichever is less), the results are acceptable.

If, however, a higher leakage rate is obtained,

the tester shall record the leakage rate and

void the sampling run.

8.6 Sampling Train Operation

8.6.1 During the sampling run, maintain

an isokinetic sampling rate to within 10

percent of true isokinetic, below 28 l/min

(1.0 cfm). Maintain a temperature around the

probe of 120°C ± 14°C (248° ± 25°F).

8.6.2 For each run, record the data on a

data sheet such as the one shown in Figure

2. Be sure to record the initial dry-gas meter

reading. Record the dry-gas meter readings at

the beginning and end of each sampling time

increment, when changes in flow rates are

made, before and after each leak-check, and

when sampling is halted. Take other readings

required by Figure 2 at least once at each

sample point during each time increment and

additional readings when significant

adjustments (20 percent variation in velocity

head readings) necessitate additional

adjustments in flow rate. Level and zero the

manometer. Because the manometer level

and zero may drift due to vibrations and

temperature changes, make periodic checks

during the traverse.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31723

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
31724 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

Traverse point number

Sampling

time

(e) min.

Vacuum

mm Hg

(in. Hg)

Stack

temperature (T )

°C (°F)

Velocity

head

(∆P) mm

(in) H2O

Pressure

differential

across

orifice

meter

mm H2O

(in. H2O)

Gas sample volume

m3

(ft3)

Gas sample temperature at dry gas meter Filter

holder

temperature

°C (°F)

Temperature of

gas leaving condenser or

last impinger

°C (°F)

Inlet

°C (°F)

Outlet

°C (°F)

................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

Total ................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ Avg. Avg. ................ ................

Average ..................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ Avg. ................ ................ ................

8.6.3 Clean the stack access ports prior to

the test run to eliminate the chance of

sampling deposited material. To begin

sampling, remove the nozzle cap, verify that

the probe heating system are at the specified

temperature, and verify that the pitot tube

and probe are properly positioned. Position

the nozzle at the first traverse point, with the

tip pointing directly into the gas stream.

Immediately start the pump and adjust the

flow to isokinetic conditions. Nomographs,

which aid in the rapid adjustment of the

isokinetic sampling rate without excessive

computations, are available. These

nomographs are designed for use when the

Type S pitot tube coefficient is 0.84 ± 0.02

and the stack gas equivalent density (dry

molecular weight) is equal to 29 ± 4. APTD–

0576 details the procedure for using the

nomographs. If the stack gas molecular

weight and the pitot tube coefficient are

outside the above ranges, do not use the

nomographs unless appropriate steps are

taken to compensate for the deviations.

8.6.4 When the stack is under significant

negative pressure (equivalent to the height of

the impinger stem), take care to close the

coarse-adjust valve before inserting the probe

into the stack in order to prevent liquid from

backing up through the train. If necessary, a

low vacuum on the train may have to be

started prior to entering the stack.

8.6.5 When the probe is in position, block

off the openings around the probe and stack

access port to prevent unrepresentative

dilution of the gas stream.

8.6.6 Traverse the stack cross section, as

required by EPA Method 1, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, being careful not to bump the

probe nozzle into the stack walls when

sampling near the walls or when removing or

inserting the probe through the access port,

in order to minimize the chance of extracting

deposited material.

8.6.7 During the test run, make periodic

adjustments to keep the temperature around

the probe at the proper levels. Add more ice

and, if necessary, salt, to maintain a

temperature of <20°C (68°F) at the silica gel

outlet.

8.6.8 A single train shall be used for the

entire sampling run, except in cases where

simultaneous sampling is required in two or

more separate ducts or at two or more

different locations within the same duct, or

in cases where equipment failure necessitates

a change of trains. An additional train or

trains may also be used for sampling when

the capacity of a single train is exceeded.

8.6.9 When two or more trains are used,

separate analyses of components from each

train shall be performed. If multiple trains

have been used because the capacity of a

single train would be exceeded, first

impingers from each train may be combined,

and second impingers from each train may be

combined.

8.6.10 At the end of the sampling run,

turn off the coarse-adjust valve, remove the

probe and nozzle from the stack, turn off the

pump, record the final dry gas meter reading,

and conduct a post-test leak-check. Also,

check the pitot lines as described in EPA

Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The

lines must pass this leak-check in order to

validate the velocity-head data.

8.6.11 Calculate percent isokineticity (see

Method 2) to determine whether the run was

valid or another test should be made.

8.7 Sample Preservation and Handling

8.7.1 Samples from most sources

applicable to this method have acceptable

holding times using normal handling

practices (shipping samples iced, storing in

refrigerator at 2°C until analysis). However,

forming section stacks and other sources

using waste water sprays may be subject to

microbial contamination. For these sources, a

biocide (quaternary ammonium compound

solution) may be added to collected samples

to improve sample stability and method

ruggedness.

8.7.2 Sample holding time: Samples

should be analyzed within 14 days of

collection. Samples must be refrigerated/kept

cold for the entire period preceding analysis.

After the samples have been brought to room

temperature for analysis, any analyses

needed should be performed on the same

day. Repeated cycles of warming the samples

to room temperature/refrigerating/rewarming,

then analyzing again, etc., have not been

investigated in depth to evaluate if analyte

levels remain stable for all sources.

8.7.3 Additional studies will be

performed to evaluate whether longer sample

holding times are feasible for this method.

8.8 Sample Recovery

8.8.1 Preparation:

8.8.1.1 Proper cleanup procedure begins

as soon as the probe is removed from the

stack at the end of the sampling period.

Allow the probe to cool. When the probe can

be handled safely, wipe off all external

particulate matter near the tip of the probe

nozzle and place a cap over the tip to prevent

losing or gaining particulate matter. Do not

cap the probe tightly while the sampling

train is cooling because a vacuum will be

created, drawing liquid from the impingers

back through the sampling train.

8.8.1.2 Before moving the sampling train

to the cleanup site, remove the probe from

the sampling train and cap the open outlet,

being careful not to lose any condensate that

might be present. Remove the umbilical cord

from the last impinger and cap the impinger.

If a flexible line is used, let any condensed

water or liquid drain into the impingers. Cap

off any open impinger inlets and outlets.

Ground glass stoppers, Teflon TM caps, or

caps of other inert materials may be used to

seal all openings.

8.8.1.3 Transfer the probe and impinger

assembly to an area that is clean and

protected from wind so that the chances of

contaminating or losing the sample are

minimized.

8.8.1.4 Inspect the train before and during

disassembly, and note any abnormal

conditions.

8.8.1.5 Save a portion of the washing

solution (high purity water) used for cleanup

as a blank.

8.8.2 Sample Containers:

8.8.2.1 Container 1: Probe and Impinger

Catches. Using a graduated cylinder, measure

to the nearest ml, and record the volume of

the solution in the first three impingers.

Alternatively, the solution may be weighed to

the nearest 0.5 g. Include any condensate in

the probe in this determination. Transfer the

combined impinger solution from the

graduated cylinder into the polyethylene

bottle. Taking care that dust on the outside

of the probe or other exterior surfaces does

not get into the sample, clean all surfaces to

which the sample is exposed (including the

probe nozzle, probe fitting, probe liner, first

three impingers, and impinger connectors)

with water. Use less than 400 ml for the

entire waste (250 ml would be better, if

possible). Add the rinse water to the sample

container.

8.8.2.1.1 Carefully remove the probe

nozzle and rinse the inside surface with

water from a wash bottle. Brush with a bristle

brush and rinse until the rinse shows no

visible particles, after which make a final

rinse of the inside surface. Brush and rinse

the inside parts of the Swagelok (or

equivalent) fitting with water in a similar

way.

8.8.2.1.2 Rinse the probe liner with water.

While squirting the water into the upper end

of the probe, tilt and rotate the probe so that
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31725

all inside surfaces will be wetted with water.

Let the water drain from the lower end into

the sample container. The tester may use a

funnel (glass or polyethylene) to aid in

transferring the liquid washes to the

container. Follow the rinse with a bristle

brush. Hold the probe in an inclined

position, and squirt water into the upper end

as the probe brush is being pushed with a

twisting action through the probe. Hold the

sample container underneath the lower end

of the probe, and catch any water and

particulate matter that is brushed from the

probe. Run the brush through the probe three

times or more. Rinse the brush with water

and quantitatively collect these washings in

the sample container. After the brushing,

make a final rinse of the probe as describe

above.

Note: Two people should clean the probe

in order to minimize sample losses. Between

sampling runs, brushes must be kept clean

and free from contamination.

8.8.2.1.3 Rinse the inside surface of each

of the first three impingers (and connecting

tubing) three separate times. Use a small

portion of water for each rinse, and brush

each surface to which the sample is exposed

with a bristle brush to ensure recovery of fine

particulate matter. Make a final rinse of each

surface and of the brush, using water.

8.8.2.1.4 After all water washing and

particulate matter have been collected in the

sample container, tighten the lid so the

sample will not leak out when the container

is shipped to the laboratory. Mark the height

of the fluid level to determine whether

leakage occurs during transport. Label the

container clearly to identify its contents.

8.8.2.1.5 If the first two impingers are to

be analyzed separately to check for

breakthrough, separate the contents and

rinses of the two impingers into individual

containers. Care must be taken to avoid

physical carryover from the first impinger to

the second. Any physical carryover of

collected moisture into the second impinger

will invalidate a breakthrough assessment.

8.8.2.2 Container 2: Sample Blank.

Prepare a blank by using a polyethylene

container and adding a volume of water

equal to the total volume in Container 1.

Process the blank in the same manner as

Container 1.

8.8.2.3 Container 3: Silica Gel. Note the

color of the indicating silica gel to determine

whether it has been completely spent and

make a notation of its condition. The

impinger containing the silica gel may be

used as a sample transport container with

both ends sealed with tightly fitting caps or

plugs. Ground-glass stoppers or TeflonTM

caps maybe used. The silica gel impinger

should then be labeled, covered with

aluminum foil, and packaged on ice for

transport to the laboratory. If the silica gel is

removed from the impinger, the tester may

use a funnel to pour the silica gel and a

rubber policeman to remove the silica gel

from the impinger. It is not necessary to

remove the small amount of dust particles

that may adhere to the impinger wall and are

difficult to remove. Since the gain in weight

is to be used for moisture calculations, do not

use water or other liquids to transfer the

silica gel. If a balance is available in the field,

the spent silica gel (or silica gel plus

impinger) may be weighed to the nearest

0.5 g.

8.8.2.4 Sample containers should be

placed in a cooler, cooled by (although not

in contact with) ice. Putting sample bottles in

Zip-LockTM bags can aid in maintaining the

integrity of the sample labels. Sample

containers should be placed vertically to

avoid leakage during shipment. Samples

should be cooled during shipment so they

will be received cold at the laboratory. It is

critical that samples be chilled immediately

after recovery. If the source is susceptible to

microbial contamination from wash water

(e.g. forming section stack), add biocide as

directed in section 8.2.5.

8.8.2.5 A quaternary ammonium

compound can be used as a biocide to

stabilize samples against microbial

degradation following collection. Using the

stock quaternary ammonium compound

(QAC) solution; add 2.5 ml QAC solution for

every 100 ml of recovered sample volume

(estimate of volume is satisfactory)

immediately after collection. The total

volume of QAC solution must be accurately

known and recorded, to correct for any

dilution caused by the QAC solution

addition.

8.8.3 Sample Preparation for Analysis

8.8.3.1 The sample should be refrigerated if

the analysis will not be performed on the day

of sampling. Allow the sample to warm at

room temperature for about two hours (if it

has been refrigerated) prior to analyzing.

8.8.3.2 Analyze the sample by the

pararosaniline method, as described in

Section 11. If the color-developed sample has

an absorbance above the highest standard, a

suitable dilution in high purity water should

be prepared and analyzed.

9.0 Quality Control

9.1 Sampling: See EPA Manual 600/4–

77–02b for Method 5 quality control.

9.2 Analysis: The quality assurance

program required for this method includes

the analysis of the field and method blanks,

and procedure validations. The positive

identification and quantitation of

formaldehyde are dependent on the integrity

of the samples received and the precision

and accuracy of the analytical methodology.

Quality assurance procedures for this method

are designed to monitor the performance of

the analytical methodology and to provide

the required information to take corrective

action if problems are observed in laboratory

operations or in field sampling activities.

9.2.1 Field Blanks: Field blanks must be

submitted with the samples collected at each

sampling site. The field blanks include the

sample bottles containing aliquots of sample

recover water, and water reagent. At a

minimum, one complete sampling train will

be assembled in the field staging area, taken

to the sampling area, and leak-checked at the

beginning and end of the testing (or for the

same total number of times as the actual

sampling train). The probe of the blank train

must be heated during the sample test. The

train will be recovered as if it were an actual

test sample. No gaseous sample will be

passed through the blank sampling train.

9.2.2 Blank Correction: The field blank

formaldehyde concentrations will be

subtracted from the appropriate sample

formaldehyde concentrations. Blank

formaldehyde concentrations above 0.25 μg/

ml should be considered suspect, and

subtraction from the sample formaldehyde

concentrations should be performed in a

manner acceptable to the Administrator.

9.2.3 Method Blanks: A method blank

must be prepared for each set of analytical

operations, to evaluate contamination and

artifacts that can be derived from glassware,

reagents, and sample handling in the

laboratory.

10 Calibration

10.1 Probe Nozzle: Probe nozzles shall be

calibrated before their initial use in the field.

Using a micrometer, measure the inside

diameter of the nozzle to the nearest 0.025

mm (0.001 in). Make measurements at three

separate places across the diameter and

obtain the average of the measurements. The

difference between the high and low

numbers shall not exceed 0.1 mm (0.004 in).

When the nozzle becomes nicked or

corroded, it shall be repaired and calibrated,

or replaced with a calibrated nozzle before

use. Each nozzle must be permanently and

uniquely identified.

10.2 Pitot Tube: The Type S pitot tube

assembly shall be calibrated according to the

procedure outlined in Section 4 of EPA

Method 2, or assigned a nominal coefficient

of 0.84 if it is not visibly nicked or corroded

and if it meets design and intercomponent

spacing specifications.

10.3 Metering System

10.3.1 Before its initial use in the field,

the metering system shall be calibrated

according to the procedure outlined in

APTD–0576. Instead of physically adjusting

the dry-gas meter dial readings to correspond

to the wet-test meter readings, calibration

factors may be used to correct the gas meter

dial readings mathematically to the proper

values. Before calibrating the metering

system, it is suggested that a leak-check be

conducted. For metering systems having

diaphragm pumps, the normal leak-check

procedure will not delete leakages with the

pump. For these cases, the following leakcheck procedure will apply: Make a tenminute calibration run at 0.00057 m3/min

(0.02 cfm). At the end of the run, take the

difference of the measured wet-test and drygas meter volumes and divide the difference

by 10 to get the leak rate. The leak rate

should not exceed 0.00057 m3/min (0.02

cfm).

10.3.2 After each field use, check the

calibration of the metering system by

performing three calibration runs at a single

intermediate orifice setting (based on the

previous field test). Set the vacuum at the

maximum value reached during the test

series. To adjust the vacuum, insert a valve

between the wet-test meter and the inlet of

the metering system. Calculate the average

value of the calibration factor. If the

calibration has changed by more than 5

percent, recalibrate the meter over the full

range of orifice settings, as outlined in

APTD–0576.

10.3.3 Leak-check of metering system:

The portion of the sampling train from the

pump to the orifice meter (see Figure 1)
31726 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

should be leak-checked prior to initial use

and after each shipment. Leakage after the

pump will result in less volume being

recorded than is actually sampled. Use the

following procedure: Close the main valve on

the meter box. Insert a one-hole rubber

stopper with rubber tubing attached into the

orifice exhaust pipe. Disconnect and vent the

low side of the orifice manometer. Close off

the low side orifice tap. Pressurize the system

to 13–18 cm (5–7 in) water column by

blowing into the rubber tubing. Pinch off the

tubing and observe the manometer for 1 min.

A loss of pressure on the manometer

indicates a leak in the meter box. Leaks must

be corrected.

Note: If the dry-gas meter coefficient values

obtained before and after a test series differ

by >5 percent, either the test series must be

voided or calculations for test series must be

performed using whichever meter coefficient

value (i.e., before or after) gives the lower

value of total sample volume.

10.4 Probe Heater: The probe heating

system must be calibrated before its initial

use in the field according to the procedure

outlined in APTD–0576. Probes constructed

according to APTD–0581 need not be

calibrated if the calibration curves in APTD–

0576 are used.

10.5 Temperature gauges: Use the

procedure in section 4.3 of USEPA Method

2 to calibrate in-stack temperature gauges.

Dial thermometers such as are used for the

dry gas meter and condenser outlet, shall be

calibrated against mercury-in-glass

thermometers.

10.6 Barometer: Adjust the barometer

initially and before each test series to agree

to within ±2.5 mm Hg (0.1 in Hg) of the

mercury barometer. Alternately, if a National

Weather Service Station (NWSS) is located at

the same altitude above sea level as the test

site, the barometric pressure reported by the

NWSS may be used.

10.7 Balance: Calibrate the balance before

each test series, using Class S standard

weights. The weights must be within ±0.5

percent of the standards, or the balance must

be adjusted to meet these limits.

11.0 Procedure for Analysis.

The working formaldehyde standards

(0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 μg/ml) are

analyzed and a calibration curve is calculated

for each day’s analysis. The standards should

be analyzed first to ensure that the method

is working properly prior to analyzing the

samples. In addition, a sample of the highpurity water should also be analyzed and

used as a ‘‘0’’ formaldehyde standard.

The procedure for analysis of samples and

standards is identical: Using the pipet set to

2.50 ml, pipet 2.50 ml of the solution to be

analyzed into a polystyrene cuvette. Using

the 250 μl pipet, pipet 250 μl of the

pararosaniline reagent solution into the

cuvette. Seal the top of the cuvette with a

Parafilm square and shake at least 30 seconds

to ensure the solution in the cuvette is wellmixed. Peel back a corner of the Parafilm so

the next reagent can be added. Using the 250

μl pipet, pipet 250 μl of the sodium sulfite

reagent solution into the cuvette. Reseal the

cuvette with the Parafilm, and again shake

for about 30 seconds to mix the solution in

the cuvette. Record the time of addition of

the sodium sulfite and let the color develop

at room temperature for 60 minutes. Set the

spectrophotometer to 570 nm and set to read

in Absorbance Units. The spectrophotometer

should be equipped with a holder for the 1-

cm pathlength cuvettes. Place cuvette(s)

containing high-purity water in the

spectrophotometer and adjust to read 0.000

AU.

After the 60 minutes color development

period, read the standard and samples in the

spectrophotometer. Record the absorbance

reading for each cuvette. The calibration

curve is calculated by linear regression, with

the formaldehyde concentration as the ‘‘x’’

coordinate of the pair, and the absorbance

reading as the ‘‘y’’ coordinate. The procedure

is very reproducible, and typically will yield

values similar to these for the calibration

curve:

Correlation Coefficient: 0.9999

Slope: 0.50

Y-Intercept: 0.090

The formaldehyde concentration of the

samples can be found by using the trend-line

feature of the calculator or computer program

used for the linear regression. For example,

the TI–55 calculators use the ‘‘X’’ key (this

gives the predicted formaldehyde

concentration for the value of the absorbance

you key in for the sample). Multiply the

formaldehyde concentration from the sample

by the dilution factor, if any, for the sample

to give the formaldehyde concentration of the

original, undiluted, sample (units will be

micrograms/ml).

11.1 Notes on the Pararosaniline Procedure

11.1.1 The pararosaniline method is

temperature-sensitive. However, the small

fluctuations typical of a laboratory will not

significantly affect the results.

11.1.2 The calibration curve is linear to

beyond 4 ‘‘μg/ml’’ formaldehyde, however, a

research-grade spectrophotometer is required

to reproducibly read the high absorbance

values. Consult your instrument manual to

evaluate the capability of the

spectrophotometer.

11.1.3 The quality of the laboratory water

used to prepare standards and make dilutions

is critical. It is important that the cautions

given in the Reagents section be observed.

This procedure allows quantitation of

formaldehyde at very low levels, and thus it

is imperative to avoid contamination from

other sources of formaldehyde and to

exercise the degree of care required for trace

analyses.

11.1.4 The analyst should become

familiar with the operation of the Oxford or

equivalent pipettors before using them for an

analysis. Follow the instructions of the

manufacturer; one can pipet water into a

tared container on any analytical balance to

check pipet accuracy and precision. This will

also establish if the proper technique is being

used. Always use a new tip for each pipetting

operation.

11.1.5 This procedure follows the

recommendations of ASTM Standard Guide

D 3614, reading all solutions versus water in

the reference cell. This allows the absorbance

of the blank to be tracked on a daily basis.

Refer to ASTM D 3614 for more information.

12.0 Calculations

Carry out calculations, retaining at least

one extra decimal figure beyond that of the

acquired data. Round off figures after final

calculations.

12.1 Calculations of Total Formaldehyde

12.1.1 To determine the total

formaldehyde in mg, use the following

equation if biocide was not used:

Total mg formaldehyde=

C V DF mg g d × × × 0 001 . /μ

Where:

Cd = measured conc. formaldehyde, μg/ml

V = total volume of stack sample, ml

DF = dilution factor

12.1.2 To determine the total

formaldehyde in mg, use the following

equation if biocide was used:

Total mg formaldehyde=

C V

V B DF mg g

d ×

( ) − × × 0 001 . /μ

Where:

Cd = measured conc. formaldehyde, μg/ml

V = total volume of stack sample, ml

B = total volume of biocide added to sample,

ml

DF = dilution factor

12.2 Formaldehyde concentration (mg/

m3) in stack gas. Determine the formaldehyde

concentration (mg/m3) in the stack gas using

the following equation: Formaldehyde

concentration (mg/m3) =

K total formaldehyde mg

V std m

× [ , ]

( )

Where:

K = 35.31 cu ft/m3 for Vm(std) in English

units, or

K = 1.00 m3/m3 for Vm(std) in metric units

Vm(std) = volume of gas sample measured by

a dry gas meter, corrected to standard

conditions, dscm (dscf)

12.3 Average dry gas meter temperature

and average orifice pressure drop are

obtained from the data sheet.

12.4 Dry Gas Volume: Calculate Vm(std)

and adjust for leakage, if necessary, using the

equation in Section 6.3 of EPA Method 5, 40

CFR part 60, appendix A.

12.5 Volume of Water Vapor and

Moisture Content: Calculated the volume of

water vapor and moisture content from

equations 5–2 and 5–3 of EPA Method 5.

13.0 Method Performance

The precision of this method is estimated

to be better than ±5 percent, expressed as ±

the percent relative standard deviation.

14.0 Pollution Prevention. (Reserved)

15.0 Waste Management. (Reserved)

16.0 References

R.R. Miksch, et al., Analytical Chemistry,

November 1981, 53 pp. 2118–2123.

J.F. Walker, Formaldehyde, Third Edition,

1964.

US EPA 40 CFR, part 60, Appendix A, Test

Methods 1–5
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31727

Method 318—Extractive FTIR Method for

the Measurement of Emissions From the

Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass

Industries

1.0 Scope and Application

This method has been validated and

approved for mineral wool and wool

fiberglass sources. This method may not be

applied to other source categories without

validation and approval by the Administrator

according to the procedures in Test Method

301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. For sources

seeking to apply FTIR to other source

categories, Test Method 320 (40 CFR part 63,

appendix A) may be utilized.

1.1 Scope. The analytes measured by this

method and their CAS numbers are:

Carbon Monoxide 630–08–0

Carbonyl Sulfide 463–58–1

Formaldehyde 50–00–0

Methanol 1455–13–6

Phenol 108–95–2

1.2 Applicability

1.2.1 This method is applicable for the

determination of formaldehyde, phenol,

methanol, carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon

monoxide (CO) concentrations in controlled

and uncontrolled emissions from

manufacturing processes using phenolic

resins. The compounds are analyzed in the

mid-infrared spectral region (about 400 to

4000 cm¥1 or 25 to 2.5 μm). Suggested

analytical regions are given below (Table 1).

Slight deviations from these recommended

regions may be necessary due to variations in

moisture content and ammonia concentration

from source to source.

TABLE 1.—EXAMPLE ANALYTICAL REGIONS

Compound Analytical region (cm¥1)

FLm ¥ FUm Potential interferants

Formaldehyde ................................................................................................................ 2840.93¥2679.83 .............. Water, Methane.

Phenol ............................................................................................................................ 1231.32¥1131.47 .............. Water, Ammonia, Methane.

Methanol ........................................................................................................................ 1041.56¥1019.95 .............. Water, Ammonia.

COSa .............................................................................................................................. 2028.4¥2091.9 .................. Water, CO2, CO.

COa ................................................................................................................................ 2092.1¥2191.8 .................. Water, CO2, COS.

aSuggested analytical regions assume about 15 percent moisture and CO2, and that COS and CO have about the same absorbance (in the

range of 10 to 50 ppm). If CO and COS are hundreds of ppm or higher, then CO2 and moisture interference is reduced. If CO or COS is present

at high concentration and the other at low concentration, then a shorter cell pathlength may be necessary to measure the high concentration

component.

1.2.2 This method does not apply when: (a)

Polymerization of formaldehyde occurs, (b)

moisture condenses in either the sampling

system or the instrumentation, and (c) when

moisture content of the gas stream is so high

relative to the analyte concentrations that it

causes severe spectral interference.

1.3 Method Range and Sensitivity

1.3.1 The analytical range is a function of

instrumental design and composition of the

gas stream. Theoretical detection limits

depend, in part, on (a) the absorption

coefficient of the compound in the analytical

frequency region, (b) the spectral resolution,

(c) interferometer sampling time, (d) detector

sensitivity and response, and (e) absorption

pathlength.

1.3.2 Practically, there is no upper limit

to the range. The practical lower detection

limit is usually higher than the theoretical

value, and depends on (a) moisture content

of the flue gas, (b) presence of interferants,

and (c) losses in the sampling system. In

general, a 22 meter pathlength cell in a

suitable sampling system can achieve

practical detection limits of 1.5 ppm for three

compounds (formaldehyde, phenol, and

methanol) at moisture levels up to 15 percent

by volume. Sources with uncontrolled

emissions of CO and COS may require a 4

meter pathlength cell due to high

concentration levels. For these two

compounds, make sure absorbance of highest

concentration component is <1.0.

1.4 Data Quality Objectives

1.4.1 In designing or configuring the

system, the analyst first sets the data quality

objectives, i.e., the desired lower detection

limit (DLi) and the desired analytical

uncertainty (AUi) for each compound. The

instrumental parameters (factors b, c, d, and

e in Section 1.3.1) are then chosen to meet

these requirements, using Appendix D of the

FTIR Protocol.

1.4.2 Data quality for each application is

determined, in part, by measuring the RMS

(Root Mean Square) noise level in each

analytical spectral region (Appendix C of the

FTIR Protocol). The RMS noise is defined as

the RMSD (Root Mean Square Deviation) of

the absorbance values in an analytical region

from the mean absorbance value of the

region. Appendix D of the FTIR Protocol

defines the MAUim (minimum analyte

uncertainty of the ith analyte in the mth

analytical region). The MAU is the minimum

analyte concentration for which the

analytical uncertainty limit (AUi) can be

maintained: if the measured analyte

concentration is less than MAUi, then data

quality is unacceptable. Table 2 gives some

example DL and AU values along with

calculated areas and MAU values using the

protocol procedures.

TABLE 2.—EXAMPLE PRE-TEST PROTOCOL CALCULATIONS

Protocol value Form Phenol Methanol Protocol

appendix

Reference concentrationa (ppm-meters)/K .......................................... 3.016 3.017 5.064

Reference Band Area .......................................................................... 8.2544 16.6417 4.9416 B

DL (ppm-meters)/K .............................................................................. 0.1117 0.1117 0.1117 B

AU ........................................................................................................ 0.2 0.2 0.2 B

CL ......................................................................................................... 0.02234 0.02234 0.02234 B

FL ......................................................................................................... 2679.83 1131.47 1019.95 B

FU ........................................................................................................ 2840.93 1231.32 1041.56 B

FC ........................................................................................................ 2760.38 1181.395 1030.755 B

AAI (ppm-meters)/K ............................................................................. 0.18440 0.01201 0.00132 B

RMSD ................................................................................................... 2.28E–03 1.21E–03 1.07E–03 C

MAU (ppm-meters)/K ........................................................................... 4.45E–02 7.26E–03 4.68E–03 D

MAU (ppm at 22) ................................................................................. 0.0797 0.0130 0.0084 D

a Concentration units are: ppm concentration of the reference sample (ASC), times the path length of the FTIR cell used when the reference

spectrum was measured (meters), divided by the absolute temperature of the reference sample in Kelvin (K), or (ppm-meters)/K.
31728 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

2.0 Summary of Method

2.1 Principle

2.1.1 Molecules are composed of

chemically bonded atoms, which are in

constant motion. The atomic motions result

in bond deformations (bond stretching and

bond-angle bending). The number of

fundamental (or independent) vibrational

motions depends on the number of atoms (N)

in the molecule. At typical testing

temperatures, most molecules are in the

ground-state vibrational state for most of

their fundamental vibrational motions. A

molecule can undergo a transition from its

ground state (for a particular vibration) to the

first excited state by absorbing a quantum of

light at a frequency characteristic of the

molecule and the molecular motion.

Molecules also undergo rotational transitions

by absorbing energies in the far-infrared or

microwave spectral regions. Rotational

transition absorbencies are superimposed on

the vibrational absorbencies to give a

characteristic shape to each rotationalvibrational absorbance ‘‘band.’’

2.1.2 Most molecules exhibit more than

one absorbance band in several frequency

regions to produce an infrared spectrum (a

characteristic pattern of bands or a

‘‘fingerprint’’) that is unique to each

molecule. The infrared spectrum of a

molecule depends on its structure (bond

lengths, bond angles, bond strengths, and

atomic masses). Even small differences in

structure can produce significantly different

spectra.

2.1.3 Spectral band intensities vary with

the concentration of the absorbing

compound. Within constraints, the

relationship between absorbance and sample

concentration is linear. Sample spectra are

compared to reference spectra to determine

the species and their concentrations.

2.2 Sampling and Analysis

2.2.1 Flue gas is continuously extracted

from the source, and the gas or a portion of

the gas is conveyed to the FTIR gas cell,

where a spectrum of the flue gas is recorded.

Absorbance band intensities are related to

sample concentrations by Beer’s Law.

Where:

A a b c v i i = ∑ ( ) 6

Aν = absorbance of the ith component at the

given frequency, ν.

a = absorption coefficient of the ith

component at the frequency, ν.

b = path length of the cell.

c = concentration of the ith compound in the

sample at frequency ν.

2.2.2 After identifying a compound from

the infrared spectrum, its concentration is

determined by comparing band intensities in

the sample spectrum to band intensities in

‘‘reference spectra’’ of the formaldehyde,

phenol, methanol, COS and CO. These

reference spectra are available in a

permanent soft copy from the EPA spectral

library on the EMTIC bulletin board. The

source may also prepare reference spectra

according to Section 4.5 of the FTIR Protocol.

Note: Reference spectra not prepared

according to the FTIR Protocol are not

acceptable for use in this test method.

Documentation detailing the FTIR Protocol

steps used in preparing any non-EPA

reference spectra shall be included in each

test report submitted by the source.

2.3 Operator Requirements. The analyst

must have some knowledge of source

sampling and of infrared spectral patterns to

operate the sampling system and to choose a

suitable instrument configuration. The

analyst should also understand FTIR

instrument operation well enough to choose

an instrument configuration consistent with

the data quality objectives.

3.0 Definitions

See Appendix A of the FTIR Protocol.

4.0 Interferences

4.1 Analytical (or Spectral) Interferences.

Water vapor. High concentrations of

ammonia (hundreds of ppm) may interfere

with the analysis of low concentrations of

methanol (1 to 5 ppm). For CO, carbon

dioxide and water may be interferants. In

cases where COS levels are low relative to

CO levels, CO and water may be interferants.

4.2 Sampling System Interferences.

Water, if it condenses, and ammonia, which

reacts with formaldehyde.

5.0 Safety

5.1 Formaldehyde is a suspected

carcinogen; therefore, exposure to this

compound must be limited. Proper

monitoring and safety precautions must be

practiced in any atmosphere with potentially

high concentrations of CO.

5.2 This method may involve sampling at

locations having high positive or negative

pressures, high temperatures, elevated

heights, high concentrations of hazardous or

toxic pollutants, or other diverse sampling

conditions. It is the responsibility of the

tester(s) to ensure proper safety and health

practices, and to determine the applicability

of regulatory limitations before performing

this test method.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

The equipment and supplies are based on

the schematic of a sampling train shown in

Figure 1. Either the evacuated or purged

sampling technique may be used with this

sampling train. Alternatives may be used,

provided that the data quality objectives of

this method are met.

6.1 Sampling Probe. Glass, stainless steel,

or other appropriate material of sufficient

length and physical integrity to sustain

heating, prevent adsorption of analytes, and

to reach gas sampling point.

6.2 Particulate Filters. A glass wool plug

(optional) inserted at the probe tip (for large

particulate removal) and a filter rated at 1-

micron (e.g., BalstonTM) for fine particulate

removal, placed immediately after the heated

probe.

6.3 Sampling Line/Heating System.

Heated (maintained at 250 ± 25 degrees F)

stainless steel, TeflonTM, or other inert

material that does not adsorb the analytes, to

transport the sample to analytical system.

6.4 Stainless Steel Tubing. Type 316, e.g., 3⁄8 in. diameter, and appropriate length for

heated connections.

6.5 Gas Regulators. Appropriate for

individual gas cylinders.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31729

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
31730 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

6.6 TeflonTM Tubing. Diameter (e.g., 3⁄8

in.) and length suitable to connect cylinder

regulators.

6.7 Sample Pump. A leak-free pump (e.g.,

KNF TM), with by-pass valve, capable of

pulling sample through entire sampling

system at a rate of about 10 to 20 L/min. If

placed before the analytical system, heat the

pump and use a pump fabricated from

materials non-reactive to the target

pollutants. If the pump is located after the

instrument, systematically record the sample

pressure in the gas cell.

6.8 Gas Sample Manifold. A heated

manifold that diverts part of the sample

stream to the analyzer, and the rest to the bypass discharge vent or other analytical

instrumentation.

6.9 Rotameter. A calibrated 0 to 20 L/min

range rotameter.

6.10 FTIR Analytical System.

Spectrometer and detector, capable of

measuring formaldehyde, phenol, methanol,

COS and CO to the predetermined minimum

detectable level. The system shall include a

personal computer with compatible software

that provides real-time updates of the

spectral profile during sample collection and

spectral collection.

6.11 FTIR Cell Pump. Required for the

evacuated sampling technique, capable of

evacuating the FTIR cell volume within 2

minutes. The FTIR cell pump should allow

the operator to obtain at least 8 sample

spectra in 1 hour.

6.12 Absolute Pressure Gauge. Heatable

and capable of measuring pressure from 0 to

1000 mmHg to within ±2.5 mmHg (e.g.,

BaratronTM).

6.13 Temperature Gauge. Capable of

measuring the cell temperature to within

±2°C.

7.0 Reagents and Standards

7.1 Ethylene (Calibration Transfer

Standard). Obtain NIST traceable (or

Protocol) cylinder gas.

7.2 Nitrogen. Ultra high purity (UHP)

grade.

7.3 Reference Spectra. Obtain reference

spectra for the target pollutants at

concentrations that bracket (in ppm-meter/K)

the emission source levels. Also, obtain

reference spectra for SF6 and ethylene.

Suitable concentrations are 0.0112 to 0.112

(ppm-meter)/K for SF6 and 5.61 (ppm-meter)/

K or less for ethylene. The reference spectra

shall meet the criteria for acceptance

outlined in Section 2.2.2. The optical density

(ppm-meters/K) of the reference spectrum

must match the optical density of the sample

spectrum within (less than) 25 percent.

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, and

Storage

Sampling should be performed in the

following sequence: Collect background,

collect CTS spectrum, collect samples,

collect post-test CTS spectrum, verify that

two copies of all data were stored on separate

computer media.

8.1 Pretest Preparations and Evaluations.

Using the procedure in Section 4.0 of the

FTIR Protocol, determine the optimum

sampling system configuration for sampling

the target pollutants. Table 2 gives some

example values for AU, DL, and MAU. Based

on a study (Reference 1), an FTIR system

using 1 cm¥1 resolution, 22 meter path

length, and a broad band MCT detector was

suitable for meeting the requirements in

Table 2. Other factors that must be

determined are:

a. Test requirements: AUi, CMAXi, DLi,

OFUi, and tAN for each.

b. Interferants: See Table 1.

c. Sampling system: LS′, Pmin, PS′, TS′, tSS,

VSS; fractional error, MIL.

d. Analytical regions: 1 through Nm, FLm,

FCm, and FUm, plus interferants, FFUm, FFLm,

wavenumber range FNU to FNL. See Tables

1 and 2.

8.1.1 If necessary, sample and acquire an

initial spectrum. Then determine the proper

operational pathlength of the instrument to

obtain non-saturated absorbances of the

target analytes.

8.1.2 Set up the sampling train as shown

in Figure 1.

8.2 Sampling System Leak-check. Leakcheck from the probe tip to pump outlet as

follows: Connect a 0- to 250-mL/min rate

meter (rotameter or bubble meter) to the

outlet of the pump. Close off the inlet to the

probe, and note the leakage rate. The leakage

rate shall be ≤200 mL/min.

8.3 Analytical System Leak-check.

8.3.1 For the evacuated sample

technique, close the valve to the FTIR cell,

and evacuate the absorption cell to the

minimum absolute pressure Pmin. Close the

valve to the pump, and determine the change

in pressure ∆Pv after 2 minutes.

8.3.2 For both the evacuated sample and

purging techniques, pressurize the system to

about 100 mmHg above atmospheric

pressure. Isolate the pump and determine the

change in pressure ∆Pp after 2 minutes.

8.3.3 Measure the barometric pressure, Pb

in mmHg.

8.3.4 Determine the percent leak volume

%VL for the signal integration time tSS and

for ∆Pmax, i.e., the larger of ∆Pv or ∆Pp, as

follows:

% max V t

P

P L SS

SS

= 50 ∆ (2)

Where:

50 = 100% divided by the leak-check time of

2 minutes.

8.3.5 Leak volumes in excess of 4 percent

of the sample system volume VSS are

unacceptable.

8.4 Background Spectrum. Evacuate the

gas cell to ≤5 mmHg, and fill with dry

nitrogen gas to ambient pressure. Verify that

no significant amounts of absorbing species

(for example water vapor and CO2) are

present. Collect a background spectrum,

using a signal averaging period equal to or

greater than the averaging period for the

sample spectra. Assign a unique file name to

the background spectrum. Store the spectra

of the background interferogram and

processed single-beam background spectrum

on two separate computer media (one is used

as the back-up). If continuous sampling will

be used during sample collection, collect the

background spectrum with nitrogen gas

flowing through the cell at the same pressure

and temperature as will be used during

sampling.

8.5 Pre-Test Calibration Transfer

Standard. Evacuate the gas cell to ≤5 mmHg

absolute pressure, and fill the FTIR cell to

atmospheric pressure with the CTS gas. Or,

purge the cell with 10 cell volumes of CTS

gas. Record the spectrum. If continuous

sampling will be used during sample

collection, collect the CTS spectrum with

CTS gas flowing through the cell at the same

pressure and temperature as will be used

during sampling.

8.6 Samples

8.6.1 Evacuated Samples. Evacuate the

absorbance cell to ≤5 mmHg absolute

pressure. Fill the cell with flue gas to

ambient pressure and record the spectrum.

Before taking the next sample, evacuate the

cell until no further evidence of absorption

exists. Repeat this procedure to collect at

least 8 separate spectra (samples) in 1 hour.

8.6.2 Purge Sampling. Purge the FTIR cell

with 10 cell volumes of flue gas and at least

for about 10 minutes. Discontinue the gas cell

purge, isolate the cell, and record the sample

spectrum and the pressure. Before taking the

next sample, purge the cell with 10 cell

volumes of flue gas.

8.6.3 Continuous Sampling. Spectra can

be collected continuously while the FTIR cell

is being purged. The sample integration time,

tss, the sample flow rate through the FTIR gas

cell, and the total run time must be chosen

so that the collected data consist of at least

10 spectra with each spectrum being of a

separate cell volume of flue gas. More spectra

can be collected over the run time and the

total run time (and number of spectra) can be

extended as well.

8.7 Sampling QA, Data Storage and

Reporting

8.7.1 Sample integration times should be

sufficient to achieve the required signal-tonoise ratios. Obtain an absorbance spectrum

by filling the cell with nitrogen. Measure the

RMSD in each analytical region in this

absorbance spectrum. Verify that the number

of scans is sufficient to achieve the target

MAU (Table 2).

8.7.2 Identify all sample spectra with

unique file names.

8.7.3 Store on two separate computer

media a copy of sample interferograms and

processed spectra. The data shall be available

to the Administrator on request for the length

of time specified in the applicable regulation.

8.7.4 For each sample spectrum,

document the sampling conditions, the

sampling time (while the cell was being

filled), the time the spectrum was recorded,

the instrumental conditions (path length,

temperature, pressure, resolution, integration

time), and the spectral file name. Keep a hard

copy of these data sheets.

8.8 Signal Transmittance. While

sampling, monitor the signal transmittance

through the instrumental system. If signal

transmittance (relative to the background)

drops below 95 percent in any spectral region

where the sample does not absorb infrared

energy, obtain a new background spectrum.

8.9 Post-run CTS. After each sampling

run, record another CTS spectrum.

8.10 Post-test QA

8.10.1 Inspect the sample spectra

immediately after the run to verify that the
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 113 / Monday, June 14, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 31731

gas matrix composition was close to the

expected (assumed) gas matrix.

8.10.2 Verify that the sampling and

instrumental parameters were appropriate for

the conditions encountered. For example, if

the moisture is much greater than

anticipated, it will be necessary to use a

shorter path length or dilute the sample.

8.10.3 Compare the pre and post-run CTS

spectra. They shall agree to within ¥5

percent. See FTIR Protocol, Appendix E.

9.0 Quality Control

Follow the quality assurance procedures in

the method, including the analysis of pre and

post-run calibration transfer standards

(Sections 8.5 and 8.9) and the post-test

quality assurance procedures in Section 8.10.

10.0 Calibration and Standardization

10.1 Signal-to-Noise Ratio (S/N). The S/N

shall be sufficient to meet the MAU in each

analytical region.

10.2 Absorbance Pathlength. Verify the

absorbance path length by comparing CTS

spectra to reference spectra of the calibration

gas(es). See FTIR Protocol, Appendix E.

10.3 Instrument Resolution. Measure the

line width of appropriate CTS band(s) and

compare to reference CTS spectra to verify

instrumental resolution.

10.4 Apodization Function. Choose

appropriate apodization function. Determine

any appropriate mathematical

transformations that are required to correct

instrumental errors by measuring the CTS.

Any mathematical transformations must be

documented and reproducible.

10.5 FTIR Cell Volume. Evacuate the cell

to ≤5 mmHg. Measure the initial absolute

temperature (Ti) and absolute pressure (Pi).

Connect a wet test meter (or a calibrated dry

gas meter), and slowly draw room air into the

cell. Measure the meter volume (Vm), meter

absolute temperature (Tm), and meter

absolute pressure (Pm), and the cell final

absolute temperature (Tf) and absolute

pressure (Pf). Calculate the FTIR cell volume

Vss, including that of the connecting tubing,

as follows:

V

V

P

T

P

T

P

T

SS

m m

m

f

f

i

i

=

− 



 





 (8)

As an alternative to the wet test

meter/calibrated dry gas meter procedure,

measure the inside dimensions of the cell

cylinder and calculate its volume.

11.0 Procedure

Refer to Sections 4.6–4.11, Sections 5, 6,

and 7, and the appendices of the FTIR

Protocol.

12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations

a. Data analysis is performed using

appropriate reference spectra whose

concentrations can be verified using CTS

spectra. Various analytical programs are

available to relate sample absorbance to a

concentration standard. Calculated

concentrations should be verified by

analyzing spectral baselines after

mathematically subtracting scaled reference

spectra from the sample spectra. A full

description of the data analysis and

calculations may be found in the FTIR

Protocol (Sections 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 and

appendices).

b. Correct the calculated concentrations in

sample spectra for differences in absorption

pathlength between the reference and sample

spectra by:

C L

L

T

T corr C r

s

s

r

= calc





 









 



 (9)

Where:

Ccorr = The pathlength corrected

concentration.

Ccalc = The initial calculated concentration

(output of the Multicomp program

designed for the compound).

Lr = The pathlength associated with the

reference spectra.

Ls = The pathlength associated with the

sample spectra.

Ts = The absolute temperature (K) of the

sample gas.

Tr = The absolute gas temperature (K) at

which reference spectra were recorded.

13.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping

All interferograms used in determining

source concentration shall be stored for the

period of time required in the applicable

regulation. The Administrator has the option

of requesting the interferograms recorded

during the test in electronic form as part of

the test report.

14.0 Method Performance

Refer to the FTIR Protocol.

15.0 Pollution Prevention. [Reserved]

16.0 Waste Management

Laboratory standards prepared from the

formaldehyde and phenol are handled

according to the instructions in the materials

safety data sheets (MSDS).

17.0 References

(1) ‘‘Field Validation Test Using Fourier

Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectrometry To

Measure Formaldehyde, Phenol and

Methanol at a Wool Fiberglass Production

Facility.’’ Draft. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Report, Entropy, Inc., EPA

Contract No. 68D20163, Work Assignment I–

32, December 1994 (docket item II–A–13).

(2) ‘‘Method 301—Field Validation of

Pollutant Measurement Methods from

Various Waste Media,’’ 40 CFR part 63,

appendix A.

[FR Doc. 99–12758 Filed 6–11–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Part 101–47

[FPMR Amendment H–203]

RIN 3090–AG39

Utilization and Disposal of Real

Property Appraisal

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide

Policy, GSA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends the Federal

Property Management Regulations to

clarify and strengthen agency

responsibilities for conducting

appraisals on real property that is

available for disposal. It ensures the

reliability, integrity, and confidentiality

of those appraisals.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John Q. Martin, Director, Redeployment

Services Division at (202) 501–0084.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule is not required to be

published in the Federal Register for

notice and comment; therefore, the

Regulatory Flexibility Act does not

apply.

B. Executive Order 12866

The General Services Administration

(GSA) has determined that this rule is

not a significant regulatory action for

the purposes of Executive Order 12866

of September 30, 1993.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because the revisions do not

impose recordkeeping or information

collection requirements, or the

collection of information from offerors,

contractors, or members of the public

which require the approval of the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

under 44 U.S.C. 501 et seq.

D. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

This final rule is also exempt from

congressional review prescribed under 5

U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to

agency management and personnel.

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 101–47

Administrative practice and

procedure, Government property

management, Homeless, Surplus

Government property.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 41 CFR part 101–47 is

amended as follows: