MEMORANDUM

TO: Wool Fiberglass Rulemaking Docket

S UBJECT : Meeting wi t h North American Insulation Manufacturers Association and Wool

Fiberglass Manufacturing Industry Representatives

LOCATION : By Telephone

D ATE OF MEETING : December 17 , 2014

ATTENDEE S AND AFFILIATIONS:

EPA:

Keith Barnett, Group Leader of the Minerals and Manufacturing Group

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Industry

Angus Crane, North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
Steve Aldridge, Knauf Insulation

Carlos Davis, Cer tainTeed Corporation
Ken Gould, Owens Corning
Sherri Livengood, Johns Manville
Granta Nakayama, Kirkland & Ellis
Mike Pettis, representing Owens Corning
Brent Tracy, Johns Manville

This was a follow on to the December 5, 2014 meeting. NAIMA had drafted po tential resolutions to the three issues previously discussed. Mr. Barnett and Wool Fiberglass Industry generally discusses there possible alternatives (attached).Attachment 1

VIA E

- MAIL

December 15, 2014

Mr. Keith W. Barnett Group Leader, Office o f Air Quality and Planning Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division, Mineral and Manufacturing Group

U .S. Environmental Protection Agency 4930 Old Page Road Durham, NC 27703

RE: NAIMA’s December 5, 2014 Meeting With EPA

Dear Mr. Barnett:

The No rth American Insulation Manufacturers Association (“NAIMA”) greatly appreciated its meeting with you and Mr. Tsirigotis. During that meeting, three issues were presented: 1) NAIMA requested that EPA eliminate the “free of” language in the HF and HCl work practice and replace it with alternative language; 2) NAIMA stated that the proposed chromium emission limit is neither technologically feasible nor economically viable; therefore, NAIMA requested retention of the current PM limit as a surrogate or, altern atively, adoption of a chromium limit of

4.6 x 10

- 4 lbs/ton; and 3) NAIMA requested that EPA not set new emission limits for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol, which effectively set a MACT floor based on MACT

compliant facilities, and instead retain the o riginal MACT limit for formaldehyde.

Based on the discussion, there was consensus that the HF and HCl work practice could be modified with more appropriate language. NAIMA offers a suggested revision in this letter. With respect to the chromium, phenol, methanol, and formaldehyde emission limits, there was recognition that the current proposal was not satisfactory and an alternative approach was needed. EPA invited NAIMA to offer alternatives that would enable the industry to preserve its capacity to ma nufacture and, at the same time, provide EPA with viable options to modify their proposal within the legal limits of the Clean Air Act.

This letter provides a series of possible solutions to these three issues. These recommendations will also be repeated in NAIMA’s written comments with more details and any necessary supporting data.

HF and HCl “Free of” Language

The “free of” language in the HF and HCl work practice creates an impossibility of performance

since trace amounts of chlorides and fluorides will be present in cullet. Cullet is frequently washed with potable city water or other types of water, which contains chlorides and usually fluorides. In addition, post

- consumer cullet frequently includes glass from containers that once

held chloride

- co ntaining material

– for example, soda, beer, and such consumer products as pickles contain appreciable chloride content. In short, the industry would not be able to prove anegative. NAIMA requests the proposed work practice eliminate “free of” and subst itute it with

language that represents what the industry is currently doing to maintain its very low (majority of emissions are below detection limit) emissions levels as recognized by the EPA in its November 13, 2014 Supplemental Proposal. 1

NAIMA recomme nds the following:

“63.1382(a)(iii) (A) Maintain documentation that the cullet used is reasonably consistent with previous cullet shipments that have sustained current, low to non

- detect HF and HCl emissions from furnaces. A facility may generate its own records or rely on those provided by suppliers; or (B) Maintain documentation that work practices are in place to maintain current, low HF and HCl emissions.”

Chromium Emission Limits

During the discussion on chromium, Messrs. Carlos Davis (CertainTeed) and Mike Pettis (Owens Corning) presented data that showed first, specific company data would not support EPA’s premise that the age of a furnace correlates with an increase in chromium emissions, and second, that the EPA analysis of chromium data and fur nace age, which EPA relied upon to support its feasibility finding, was not statistically significant. As will be more fully explained in NAIMA’s written comments, while each of the results, as analyzed by EPA, 2 from 2012 versus 2010 is smaller, the high variability between furnaces precludes a conclusion that rebuilding furnaces reduces chrome. The 2012 chromium emissions are not statistically different than the 2010 chromium emissions for these furnaces. In addition, it is notable that one of these fur naces met the Supplemental Proposal’s chromium emission limit both before and after rebuilding, and another furnace did not meet the proposed standard either before or after rebuilding.

The industry acknowledges that there is some natural variation in chr omium emissions over the life of the furnace, both upward and downward, but these emissions are consistently low and not related to the aging of the furnace. In fact, the industry’s chromium emissions overall are very low. EPA acknowledged this point and has specifically stated that, but for the one data point from Kansas City, the Agency would not have a concern about chromium emissions from this industry. NAIMA has persistently argued that this single data point should be treated an as outlier, for ind eed, that is precisely what it is.

EPA has suggested that the installation of additional new

– albeit unproven

– control technology would enable NAIMA member companies to meet the new and very stringent chromium emission limit, but facts tell a different story. The industry is currently using state

- of

- the

- art, best available control equipment which has a 99.6

– 99.7 percent removal efficiency, 3 necessary to meet the existing MACT limit for particulate matter (“PM”), a standard set in EPA’s 1999

Rule as a surrogate for metals, principally chromium.

1 78 Fed. Reg. 22,373, 22,387 (April 15, 2013).

2 79 Fed. Reg. 68,011, 68,022, 68,026, 68,027 (November 13, 2014).

3 McGill AirClean, Electronic Mail Letter to NAIMA, April 10, 2013.The control technology referenced by EPA was actually taken from NAIMA’s earlier comments.

As stated by the industry in its May 30, 2013 written comments, in all instances, these technology options were charact erized by pollution control manufacturers as “experimental,” “unproven,” and “never applied to the fiber glass industry” 4 and were presented by NAIMA as

such.

NAIMA is now faced with a situation where chromium emissions are very low throughout the

industr y

– so low, in fact, that a new specific lower emission limit is not warranted

– yet a very stringent emission limit has been proposed. The industry is already using the best control equipment available and getting 99

- plus percent efficiency from the elec trostatic precipitators, 5
yet, because of one outlier, EPA wants to impose a limit that is so stringent that many furnaces

will not be able to meet that limit. The control technologies that EPA contends will enable these

furnaces to meet this new reduced limit are experimental and have never been used in the fiber glass industry.

Therefore, NAIMA requested that EPA instead continue to rely upon existing PM limits as a surrogate for all heavy metals, including chromium. This option is reasonable since thi s is the practice that has enabled the industry to maintain consistently low chromium emissions. NAIMA, however, senses that EPA wants a specific chromium limit of some kind.

As an alternative, NAIMA has offered a risk

- based emission limit of 4.6 x 10

- 4 lbs/ton. NAIMA’s proposed emission limit 6 is more conservative than what the limit would be using the Agency’s upper predictive limit (“UPL”) approach on all of the gas

- fired furnace data points but the outlier data point from Kansas City. NAIMA’s propos ed limit also is consistent with a 1 in a

million cancer risk level.

To address EPA’s concern about a repeat of the Kansas City outlier and assure compliance with the proposed 4.6 x 10

- 4 lbs/ton emission limit, NAIMA recommends chromium emissions testin g within 180 days of an oxy

- fuel or air

- gas furnace startup after a rebuild. Chromium emissions testing would continue on a yearly basis until two consecutive years showed emissions less than or equal to 75 percent of the emission limit. After that landm ark, furnaces would be tested for chromium emissions every two years. If the furnaces do not maintain emissions less than or equal to 75 percent of the emission limit, yearly testing would resume.

NAIMA requests that EPA provide, to the company represent atives of the particular company that submitted the data, the identity of the company, plant, and date of data points (or some other identifying mark) used to establish the proposed limit for chromium. In a separate e

- mail, NAIMA has provided the appropri ate company contacts to you. NAIMA also requests the methodology EPA used to calculate the proposed limit from the data. This information will help NAIMA better evaluate EPA’s proposed limit and may help determine if other alternative proposals are avail able.

Again, NAIMA’s proposed emission limit is risk

- based. NAIMA’s risk

- based limit was calculated pursuant to EPA’s risk analysis standards.

4 Each pollution control equi pment manufacturer provided written statements which were attached as appendices to

NAIMA’s earlier comments. See NAIMA’s comments submitted to EPA on May 30, 2013.

5 McGill AirClean, Electronic Mail Letter to NAIMA, April 10, 2013.

6 NAIMA will provide t he details on this recalculation in its written comments.Formaldehyde, Phenol, and Methanol Limits

During the meeting, NAIMA emphasized the industry’s successful effo rt to replace phenol

formaldehyde (“PF”) binders with non

- HAP binders in the vast majority of manufacturing facilities. As noted in EPA’s original proposal, “[d]ue to industry’s efforts to replace phenol

formaldehyde binders, more than 95 percent of forma ldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions

have been reduced . . .” 7

Despite the industry’s efforts to find substitute binders for all of the products that it manufactures, there are still certain products that continue to rely upon PF binders to satisfy

pro duct differentiation and performance demands. NAIMA’s members have been seeking non

PF substitutes for these particular products, but those substitutes have not yet been developed. Given the industry’s record in this regard, EPA has, unnecessarily in NAI MA’s view, imposed a revised formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol limit that is so stringent that those remaining lines using PF binder cannot ensure continuously meeting the limit. Recalculating a floor based on emission data from lines that have already r educed formaldehyde has caused this issue. This is particularly harsh and unfair given the industry’s generous and voluntary reduction of formaldehyde, and concurrently phenol and methanol, emissions that are far greater than EPA

could have achieved throu gh the regulatory process.

EPA seemed to acknowledge that further regulating the industry’s already significantly reduced formaldehyde emission limits was not necessarily an appropriate policy response. Therefore,

NAIMA recommended that EPA retain the or iginal MACT limit for formaldehyde and continue to have formaldehyde serve as a surrogate for phenol and methanol. It is undeniable that this approach has already resulted in significant reductions in emissions of these substances from the industry. Furt hermore, given the industry’s desire to replace more of the remaining uses of PF binders, it should result in continuing reductions in emission of these substances.

EPA indicated that this solution may be problematic because EPA has proposed a finding tha t formaldehyde is no longer an acceptable surrogate for phenol and methanol. EPA proposed limits that establish separate limits for each pollutant. Should EPA have concerns about retaining formaldehyde as a surrogate, NAIMA, in response to EPA’s invitati on to submit other potential regulatory alternatives, offers the following alternative approaches to regulating formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions from this industry:

 As demonstrated by the industry’s previous voluntary substitution of PF binder s, NAIMA asks that EPA recognize the industry’s ongoing pursuit of a non

- PF substitute for those product lines that are currently still using a PF binder because of differentiation or performance demands. It is likely that the development of these

substit ute binders for most remaining products will be completed by the time this

Rule is revisited.

 EPA could preserve the original formaldehyde limit and not set an emission limit, at this time, for phenol and methanol because of the current limited availabilit y of phenol and methanol emission data. 8

7 76 Fed. Reg. at 72,803 (November 25, 2011).

8 A small dataset contains too much uncertainty ( i.e. , a large standard deviation), resulting in an unacceptably high

MACT floor. When this occurs EPA gives itself the discretion to take a different approach. NAIMA recommends EPA could retain the original formaldehyde limit and establish a new phenol and methanol limit recognizing that the reductions already achieved with the original MACT implementation should not be used in setting new phenol and methanol limits.

 NAIMA has requested that EPA inform each company whose data was used to establish the proposed limits for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. In a separate

e

- mail, NAIMA has provided company contacts to you. The availability of this information, coupled with each company’s knowledge of what binders are currently being used where and for what products, may help NAIMA determine if inappropriate data is being used to set the MACT floor.

 Working together with the industry, EPA cou ld identify a reliable historic ratio between formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions from the industry. Based on that ratio, NAIMA proposes that EPA preserve the original formaldehyde limit and set the phenol and methanol emission limits based on th at ratio.

 EPA has de facto developed ratios between formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol in its Supplemental Proposal. EPA could retain the current formaldehyde limit and apply the ratios of phenol to formaldehyde and methanol to formaldehyde from the Suppl emental Proposal to the current formaldehyde limit to derive what the phenol and methanol floors would have been in 1999. Using the example of existing rotary spin lines, the 1.2 lb. per ton limit would be retained for formaldehyde and the phenol

and meth anol limits would be 1.64 lb. per ton (1.2*(0.26/0.19)) and 5.24 lb. per ton (1.2* (0.83/0.19)), respectively.

 Individual companies could be responsible, subject to EPA’s oversight, for calculating the ratio between formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for t heir particular production lines.

 EPA could create a subcategory or a number of different subcategories and establish limits for those subcategories. NAIMA is evaluating options that could be discussed with EPA or described more fully in its written com ments. Under Section 112(d)(1), EPA has the discretion to create subcategories which can address economic infeasibility issues so as to avoid an absurd result. 9

NAIMA appreciates the ongoing dialogue with EPA. If NAIMA can be of assistance in providing documentation or other data to EPA, please let us know the Agency’s needs.

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane Executive Vice President, General Counsel

cc: Ms. Susan Fairchild Sector Policies and Programs Division Metals and Minerals Group (D243

- 02)

Office of A ir Quality Planning and Standards

that with respect to the phenol and methanol limits, EPA reevaluate the data during the next phase of residual risk for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing industry, and, in the mean time, EPA could ask to industry to grow the phenol and methanol database during those few years.

9 Sierra Club c. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 885 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ( per curiam ).U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

4930 Old Page Road Durham, NC 27703

Mr. Peter Tsirigotis Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Age ncy 4930 Old Page Road Durham, NC 27703