MEMORANDUM

TO: Wool Fiberglass Rulemaking Docket

SUBJECT: Meeting with North American Insulation Manufacturers Association and Wool 

Fiberglass Manufacturing Industry Representatives

LOCATION: By Telephone

DATE OF MEETING: December 17, 2014

ATTENDEES 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, CertainTeed 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 potential 

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 of 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 North 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, alternatively, adoption of a chromium limit of 

4.6 x 10-4lbs/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 MACTcompliant facilities, and instead retain the original 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 manufacture 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-containing 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 a 
negative. NAIMA requests the proposed work practice eliminate “free of” and substitute 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 recommends 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 furnace 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,2from 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 furnaces 

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 chromium 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 indeed, 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,3necessary 

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 characterized by pollution control manufacturers as “experimental,” 

“unproven,” and “never applied to the fiber glass industry”4and were presented by NAIMA as 

such.

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

industry – 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 electrostatic 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 this 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 10-4lbs/ton. 

NAIMA’s proposed emission limit6is 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 proposed 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 10-4lbs/ton emission limit, NAIMA recommends chromium emissions testing 

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 landmark, 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 representatives 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 appropriate 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 available.

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 equipment 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 the details on this recalculation in its written comments.
Formaldehyde, Phenol, and Methanol Limits

During the meeting, NAIMA emphasized the industry’s successful effort to replace phenolformaldehyde (“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 phenolformaldehyde binders, more than 95 percent of formaldehyde, 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 

product differentiation and performance demands. NAIMA’s members have been seeking nonPF 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 NAIMA’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 reduced 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 through 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 original 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. Furthermore, 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 that 

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 invitation 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 binders, 

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 

substitute 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 availability 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 could 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 that 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 

Supplemental 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 methanol 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 their 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 comments. 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 Air 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 meantime, 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 Agency

4930 Old Page Road

Durham, NC 27703