### 1 **MEMORANDUM** Date: November 3 , 2011 Subject: Estimated Cost Impact for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Industry to Comply

with Proposed Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Amendments Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing RTR RTIProject No. 021 3199 .01 0 From : Dave Reeves, RTI International To: Susan Fairchild

OAQPS/SPPD/NRG (D243

- 02) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 The purpose of this memorandum is to present the estimated costs for the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry to comply with the proposed RTR amendments

. **I. BACKGROUND**  Based on the information provided by the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry and their primary trade association, North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) , there are currently 29 facilities in the U.S. producing wool fiberglass

. A recent letter from NAIMA dated June 8, 2011, stated “non

- formaldehyde binder products represent the vast majority of the industry” and “all major sources have already converted or have announced plans to convert to non-phenol formaldehyde binders.” Based on that information, we estimate that only 2 wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities will be subject to the NESHAP (subpart NNN) requirements on the compliance date of the proposed amendments (e.g., 2013)

. We estimate that there are 2 major source facilities with bonded lines producing heavy density products and

/or pipe insulation that will incur additional testing costs to demonstrate compliance with the new (proposed) phenol and methanol emission limits for forming and curing operations

. Those 2 major source facilities would incur additional testing costs to demonstrate compliance with the new (proposed) chromium (Cr) compounds, hydrogen fluoride (HF) and hydrogen chloride (HCl) emission limits for their melting furnaces. Table 1 summarizes the above information and associated cost impacts. Additionally, based on emissions test data received, there are three furnaces (located at three different facilities) that do not currently meet the chrome limit that is being proposed. If for some reason these facilities do not become area sources by the compliance date of the proposed rule, we are estimating that two of the furnaces will have to add additional controls (caustic scrubber) and one, due to exceptionally high chrome emissions, will have to replace the refractory brick lining of the furnace. The cost estimates for this scenario are located in Table 2.

### 2

**Table 1. Summary of Costs for Wool Fiberglass Mfg Facilities to Comply with Proposed RTR A**  **mendments Pipe or**  **Heavy Density**  **Product Lines**  **Melting Furnaces Forming/Curing**  **Operations on FA Lines for Pipe Insulation or**  **Heavy Density Products Total**  **Facility Cost Cr Control**  **Eqmt Annualized**  **Cost #** 

**Furnaces Testing Cost**  **a Facility**  **Location # FA Lines**  **Test Cost** 

### 1 CertainTeed Athens, GA **0 2**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 2 CertainTeed Chowchilla, CA **0 1**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 3 CertainTeed Kansas City, KS **0 2**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 4 FiberTEK Lakeland, FL **0 2**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 5 Guardian Albion, MI **0 4**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 6 Guardian Inwood, WV **0 2**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 7 Guardian Kingman, AZ **0 1**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 8 Guardian Mineral Wells, MS **0 2**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 9 Guardian Winnsboro, SC **0 1**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 10 Johns Manville Cleburne, TX **0 3**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 11 Johns Manville Defiance, OH Yes **0 8**  **4 0** **,000** 2 26,000 66,000 

### 12 Johns Manville McPherson, KS **0 3**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 13 Johns Manville Penbryn, NJ **0 1**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 14 Johns Manville Richmond, IN **0 2**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 15 Johns Manville Waterville, OH **0 6**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 16 Johns Manville Willows, CA **0 6**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 17 Johns Manville Winder, GA **0 5**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 18 Knauf Lanett, AL **0 2**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 19 Knauf Shasta Lake, CA **0 1**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 20 Knauf Shelbyville, IN **0 2**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 21 Owens

- Corning Delmar, NY **0 2**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 22 Owens

- Corning Eloy, AZ **0 2**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 23 Owens

- Corning Fairburn, GA **0 3**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 24 Owens

- Corning Kansas City, KS **0 3**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 25 Owens

- Corning Mount Vernon, OH **0 3**  **0 0**  **0** 0 

### 26 Owens

- Corning Newark, OH Yes **0 4**  **2 0,000**  2 26,000 4 6,000 

### 27 Owens

- Corning Salt Lake City, UT **0 2**  **0** 0 0 0 

### 2 8 Owens

- Corning Santa Clara, CA **0 2**  **0** 0 0 0 

### 29 Owens

- Corning Waxahachie, TX **0 3**  **0** 0 0 0 SubTotal **$ 0**  **80 $**  **60 ,000**  **4 $52,000**  **$ 11**  **2 ,**  **0 00** 

### 3

Table 1 notes: a - Furnace testing costs reflect incremental costs for Cr, HF, and HCl testing; current test requ irements for PM not included. 

### Table 2 **. Summary of Control**  **Costs for Glass** **- Melting**  **Furnaces that Do Not Currently Meet the Proposed Chromium Limit**

**Control Option Est**  **imated Capital Cost**  ***** **($MM) Est**  **imated**

**Annual Cost ($MM)**  **Total HAP**

**Emissions Reduction**  **s (pounds per year)**  **Cost Effectiveness**

**in $ per pound No. Facilities** 
Change out of refractory brick lining 6.0 0.3 900 333 1 Installation of NaOH scrubber 0 .25 0 .1 70 1 , 400 2

* These costs are presented as example costs only and were not used in calcu lating the cost impacts associated with the proposed amendments. If the facilities with the 3 existing furnaces currently not meeting the proposed chrome emission limit (based on the most recent te st results) do not become area sources and are subject to the NESHAP amendments, these are estimates of the control costs and cost effectiveness for those furnaces.

### 4

**II. COMPLIANCE**  **TESTING COSTS** Mr. Stef fan Johnson of EPA’s Measurement Policy Group provided the following cost estimates for compliance testing based on the test methods being proposed in the RTR amendments: **Emission Source**  **HAP Test**  **Method Test Cost** 

**(in 2010 $) Comment**  Melting Furnaces Cr compounds 29 $ 7 ,000

HF and HCl 320 $ 5 ,000 Forming and Curing (combined) Phenol and Methanol

(already testing for formaldehyde) 318 $14,000 $12,000 for each additional test