DATE: August 11, 2011

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

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

RTI Project No. 0210426.004.010

FROM: Cindy Hancy

Dave Reeves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

since the original development of this MACT.

I. Background/Purpose

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

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

sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). These technology-based standards are often referred 

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

provisions requiring EPA to revisit these standards. Specifically, paragraph (d)(6) of section 112 

states:

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

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

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

than every 8 years.
2

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

the following: 

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

during the development of the MACT;

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

and considered during MACT development that could result in significant additional 

HAP emissions reductions;

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

MACT development; and

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

not identified and considered during the development of the MACT.

B. Description of Source Category and MACT Requirements1

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

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

a blast furnace waste product. Other sources of slag include the copper, lead, and phosphate 

industries. The mineral wool production process has three primary components: melting of 

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

process involves melting the mineral feed. The raw materials (slag, rock, etc) are loaded into a 

cupola in alternating layers with coke. As the coke is ignited and burned, the mineral charge is 

heated to a molten state. Combustion air is supplied through tuyeres (ports) located near the 

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

use of natural gas auxiliary burners to reduce coke consumption. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1. Summary of Mineral Wool Production Emission Units

Emission Unit Description HAP Emitted

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

HCl

Collection/ 

Forming

Blow chamber or area in which air and in some cases 

a binder is sprayed over the fibers, forming them into 

a screen

Formaldehyde, 

methanol, and 

phenol (bonded 

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

bonded products)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

carbonyl sulfide (COS), and formaldehyde for phenol and methanol. The proposed rule is 

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

metals.

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

combined, these 7 facilities operate 11 cupolas and 3 curing ovens. The three facilities that 

operate curing ovens produce bonded mineral wool products and include collection operations. 

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

Wool MACT. 

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

A. Control Technologies Considered for MACT

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

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

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

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

identified and considered during MACT development) that could result in

significant additional emission reduction,

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

during MACT development, and

• Any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly 

applied that was not identified and considered during MACT development.
4

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

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

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

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

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

(Section II.D).

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

Considered During Mineral Wool Production MACT Development

Emission Source Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies

Cupolas Fabric filters, cyclones, regenerative thermal oxidizers 

Curing Ovens Thermal oxidizer

Fiber Collection Thermal oxidizer

B. Technology Developments Since Promulgation of MACT

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

controlling emissions from cupolas, curing ovens, or collection operations were identified. 

Current add-on control technologies being utilized are summarized in Table 3.

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

Mineral Wool Production Facilities. 

Emission Source Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies

Cupolas Fabric filter, thermal oxidizer, scrubber

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

Forming/Collection Thermal oxidizer, fabric filter, scrubber

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

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

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

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

The use of low sulfur raw materials may be a low cost adjustment to raw material inputs 

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

identified one facility that has lowered COS emissions from cupolas by using low sulfur rock 

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

the development of the MACT. However, this rock, composed mostly of limestone, is not 

frequently used as a raw material for mineral wool production because it costs approximately

50% more than slag. Low sulfur slag and coke may also be available for mineral wool plants to 

reduce their levels of COS. One facility uses oxygen (O2) injection at the cupola to reduce COS 

emissions before emitting to the ambient air. Both RTOs and O2 injection force the conversion 

of COS to SO2; an RTO drives the reaction at the control device and O2 injection forces the 

reaction to occur at the cupola.
5

C. Correspondence with Industry

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

information request was sent to all 7 mineral wool facilities. To identify new technologies,

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

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

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

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

was installed on a cupola exhaust in 2003 (after a thermal oxidizer) for control of SO2 emissions. 

No other control devices were identified. 

D. Search for Other Applicable Technology Developments

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

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

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

the following paragraphs.

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

required on sources in areas that are not meeting national ambient air quality standards (i.e., nonattainment areas). BACT, or Best Available Control Technology, is required on major new or 

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

on major new or modified sources in non-attainment areas. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements. Noteworthy prevention and control technology decisions and information are 

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

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

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

designed to help permit applicants and reviewers make pollution prevention and control 
6

technology decisions for stationary air pollution sources, and includes data submitted by several 

U.S. territories and all 50 States on over 200 different air pollutants and 1,000 industrial 

processes.

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

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

2011 were searched. In all cases, the control devices and methods identified through the RBLC 

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

for mineral wool.

Internet Search

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

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

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

this review.

III. References

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

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

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

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

[Insert RBLC search results – see separate pdf (26 pages) - to be combined after review]
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT

Report Date:08/08/2011

Facility Information

RBLC ID: OH-0324 (final) Date Determination

Last Updated: 10/26/2009

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

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

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

Facility Description: MINERAL WOOL MANUFACTURING SIC Code: 3296

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

Permit URL:

EPA Region: 5 COUNTRY: USA

Facility County: DEFIANCE

Facility State: OH

Facility ZIP Code: 43512

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

MS. CHERYL SUTTMAN(Agency Contact) (614)644-3617 CHERYL.SUTTMAN@EPA.STATE.OH.US 

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

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

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

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

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

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS

NAME:

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

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput:

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

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

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

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 9.9900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 43.7600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Unknown

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

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

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 60.0000 LB/H 

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

Standard Emission: 

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

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Unknown

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

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

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

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC
Test Method: Unspecified

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

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

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

Standard Emission: 

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

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Unknown

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

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

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

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

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

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 

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

 U

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Unknown

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

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

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

Facility Information
RBLC ID: OH-0261 (final) Date

Determination

Last Updated: 12/05/2003

Corporate/Company

Name:

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

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

(actual)

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

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

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

ADDING 2 NEW LINES AND MODIFICATION TO A FEW OTHERS.

SIC Code: 3296

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

Permit URL:

EPA Region: 5 COUNTRY: USA

Facility County: DEFIANCE

Facility State: OH

Facility ZIP Code: 43512

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

MS. CHERYL SUTTMAN(Agency Contact) (614)644-3617 CHERYL.SUTTMAN@EPA.STATE.OH.US 

Other Agency Contact

Info:

CHERYL E. SUTTMAN 

122 S. FRONT ST.

COLUMBUS, OH 43215

614-644-3617

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

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

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT CURING UNIT #30

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 381.00 LB/H

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

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE
Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

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

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.5300 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 2.3000 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

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

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

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.6700 LB/H 
Emission Limit 2: 2.9200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.2500 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.1000 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 1.0600 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.6600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

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

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: FORMING AND COLLECTION, #31

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

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

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

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

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 7.9400 LB/H 
Emission Limit 2: 34.7600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

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

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

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 2.4000 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 10.5300 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.8800 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 3.8300 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.1100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 9.2600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

CAS Number: 7446-09-5

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.9900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.3500 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 
Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Fluorides, Total

CAS Number: 16984-48-8

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.3900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.7100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT FINISHING, #30, #37

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

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

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average
Did factors, other then air pollution technology considerations influence the BACT decisions:

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

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

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

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

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.8600 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 3.7700 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

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

Est. % Efficiency: 99.000

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS

NAME:

HANDWRAP PRODUCT CURING UNIT, (2)

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 553.00 LB/H

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

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE
Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute avg

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

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

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

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.4100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.8100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

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

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.8400 LB/H 
Emission Limit 2: 3.6800 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

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

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

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.9800 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.3100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.4100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.7900 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT CURING UNIT, #37

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 381.00 LB/H

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

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

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.7900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 3.4600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

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

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

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 1.0200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.4700 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 1.6700 LB/H 
Emission Limit 2: 7.3200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.2200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 9.7200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT CURING UNIT, #38

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel: NATURAL GAS

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

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

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)
CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

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

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 2.0200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 8.8400 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

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

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

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 2.5600 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 11.2100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.9700 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.2500 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 4.0900 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 17.9200 T/YR 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

CAS Number: 7446-09-5

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.3400 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.5100 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: FORMING AND COLLECTION, #37

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 381.00 LB/H

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

POLLUTANT NAME: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

CAS Number: 7446-09-5

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

Emission Limit 1: 1.2200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 5.3400 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Fluorides, Total

CAS Number: 16984-48-8

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 0.4800 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 2.1000 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

CAS Number: 10102

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 2.8500 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 12.4800 T/YR 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Carbon Monoxide

CAS Number: 630-08-0

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s): ( InOrganic Compounds ) 

Emission Limit 1: 2.2200 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 9.7200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 
Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

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

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

effective.

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

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 5.8300 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 25.5400 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

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

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

effective.

POLLUTANT NAME: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

CAS Number: VOC

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 1.8100 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 7.9300 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

Control Method: (N) 

Est. % Efficiency:
Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: HANDWRAP PRODUCT FINISHING

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 553.00 LB/H

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

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

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 0.4300 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 1.8800 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

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

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

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

 Unknown
Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

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

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT FINISHING, #31, #32, #33, #34

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

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

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

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 1.1000 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 4.8200 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

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

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):
Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 min avg

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

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

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Unknown

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:

Process/Pollutant Information

PROCESS NAME: PRODUCT FINISHING, #35, #38

Process Type: 90.022 (Mineral Wool Manufacturing)

Primary Fuel:

Throughput: 880.00 LB/H

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

POLLUTANT NAME: Visible Emissions (VE)

CAS Number: VE

Test Method: Unspecified

Pollutant Group(s):

Emission Limit 1: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

Emission Limit 2: 

Standard Emission: 20.0000 % OPACITY 6 minute average

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: N/A

Other Applicable Requirements: SIP 

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

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes:
POLLUTANT NAME: Particulate matter, filterable < 10 μ (FPM10)

CAS Number: PM

Test Method: Unspecified

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

Emission Limit 1: 1.2000 LB/H 

Emission Limit 2: 5.2600 T/YR 

Standard Emission: 

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

 Unknown

Case-by-Case Basis: BACT-PSD

Other Applicable Requirements:

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

Est. % Efficiency:

Compliance Verified: Yes

Pollutant/Compliance Notes: