15228 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[IL–64–2–5807; FRL–5695–8]

RIN 2060–AE75

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories; Wool Fiberglass

Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

public hearing.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for new and

existing sources in wool fiberglass

manufacturing facilities. The hazardous

air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the

facilities covered by this proposed rule

include 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 proposed NESHAP would

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. Emissions of particulate

matter (PM) would be reduced by an

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

the proposed NESHAP.

The standards are proposed under the

authority of 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 the

draft 112(s) Report to Congress from the

various process operations found within

the industry. The proposed NESHAP

would provide protection to the public

by requiring all wool fiberglass plants

that are major sources to meet emission

standards reflecting the application of

the maximum achievable control

technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept

comments on the proposed rule until

May 30, 1997.

Public hearing. Anyone requesting a

public hearing must contact the EPA no

later than April 21, 1997. If a hearing is

held, it will take place at 10 a.m. on

April 30, 1997. Persons interested in

attending the hearing should call the

contact person listed below to verify

that a hearing will be held.

Request to speak at hearing. Persons

wishing to present oral testimony must

contact the person listed below (see

ADDRESSES) by April 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested

parties may submit written comments

(in duplicate, if possible) to Docket No.

A–95–24 at the following address: Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460. The EPA

requests that a separate copy of the

comments also be sent to the contact

person listed below.

Docket. Docket A–95–24, containing

supporting information used in

developing the proposed standard, is

located at the above address in Room

M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor),

and may be inspected from 8:00 a.m. to

5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Copies of this information may be

obtained by request from the Air Docket

by calling (202) 260–7548. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying docket

materials.

Public hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting a public hearing by the

required date (see DATES), the hearing

will be held at the EPA Office of

Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

Persons interested in presenting

testimony should contact Ms. Cathy

Coats at (919)541–5422.

A verbatim transcript of the hearing

and any written statements will be

available for public inspection and

copying during normal working hours at

the EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket in

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning the proposed

regulation, contact Mr. William J.

Neuffer, Minerals and Inorganic

Chemicals Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13) U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone

number (919) 541–5435. For

information regarding Methods 316 and

318, contact Ms. Rima N. Dishakjian,

Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis

Division, telephone number (919) 541–

0443.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated entities: Entities potentially

regulated by this action are those

industrial facilities that manufacture

wool fiberglass. Regulated categories

and entities are shown in Table 1. This

table is not intended to be exhaustive,

but rather provides a guide for readers

regarding entities likely to be regulated

by final action on this proposal. This

table lists the types of entities that EPA

is now aware could potentially be

regulated by final action on this

proposal. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by final action on

this proposal, you should carefully

examine the applicability criteria in

section III.A of this preamble and in

§ 63.1380 of the proposed rule. If you

have any questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

The information in this preamble is

organized as follows:

I. Statutory Authority

II. Introduction

A. Background

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

C. Health Effects of Pollutants

D. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Industry

Profile

E. Pollution Prevention

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

C. Performance Test and Compliance

Provisions

D. Monitoring Requirements

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

IV. Impacts of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

B. Air Quality Impacts

C. Water Impacts

D. Solid Waste Impacts

E. Energy Impacts

F. Nonair Environmental and Health

Impacts

G. Cost Impacts

H. Economic Impacts

V. Selection of Proposed Standards

A. Selection of Source Category

B. Selection of Emission Sources

C. Selection of Pollutants

D. Selection of Proposed Standards for

Existing and New Sources

1. Background

2. Selection of Floor Technologies

3. Emission Limits

E. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

F. Selection of Test Methods

G. Solicitation of Comments

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Public Hearing
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15229

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. Clean Air Act

I. Pollution Prevention Act

I. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this

proposal is provided by sections 101,

112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412,

7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Introduction

A. Background

Section 112(c) of the Act directs the

Agency to list each category of major

and area sources as appropriate emitting

one or more of the 189 HAPs listed in

section 112(b) of the Act. The EPA

published an initial list of source

categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR

31576), and may amend the list at any

time. ‘‘Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing’’

is one of the 174 categories of sources

listed in the notice. As defined in the

EPA report, Documentation for

Developing the Initial Source Category

List (docket item II-A–5), the Wool

Fiberglass Manufacturing source

category includes any facility engaged

in producing wool fiberglass from sand,

feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous

borax, boric acid, or any other materials.

Facilities that manufacture mineral

wool from rock, slag, and other similar

materials are not included in the source

category. On December 3, 1993 (58 FR

63941), EPA published a schedule for

the promulgation of standards for the

sources selected for regulation under

section 112(c) of the Act. According to

this schedule, MACT standards for this

source category must be promulgated no

later than November 15, 1997.

In the manufacture of wool fiberglass,

molten glass is formed into fibers,

which are bonded by an organic resin to

produce a wool-like material used

primarily for thermal and acoustical

insulation. The EPA estimates that at

the current level of control, 1,770 Mg/

yr (1,950 ton/yr) of metal HAPs and

formaldehyde are emitted from glassmelting furnaces and manufacturing

lines in wool fiberglass plants

nationwide. The HAPs released from

glass-melting furnaces include arsenic,

chromium, and lead; an estimated 750

Mg/yr (830 ton/yr) of particulate matter

also are emitted. Organic HAPs

(formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol)

are released from rotary spin (RS)

forming, curing, and cooling processes

and from flame attenuation (FA)

forming and curing processes.

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

Section 112 of the Act requires that

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. For new sources, MACT

standards cannot be less stringent than

the emission control that is achieved in

practice by the best-controlled similar

source. [See section 112(d)(3).] The

MACT standards for existing sources

can be less stringent than standards for

new sources, but they cannot be less

stringent than the average emission

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing

sources for categories and subcategories

with 30 or more sources, or the bestperforming 5 sources for categories or

subcategories with fewer than 30

sources. In essence, these MACT

standards would ensure that all major

sources of air toxic emissions achieve

the level of control already being

achieved by the better controlled and

lower emitting sources in each category.

This approach provides assurance to

citizens that each major source of toxic

air pollution will be required to

effectively control its emissions. At the

same time, this approach provides a

level economic playing field, ensuring

that facilities that employ cleaner

processes and good emissions controls

are not disadvantaged relative to

competitors with poorer controls.

The control of HAPs is achieved

through the promulgation of technologybased emission standards under

sections 112(d) and 112(f) and work

practice standards under 112(h) 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

within 8 years of promulgation of the

NESHAP. [See section 112(f)(2).]

C. Health Effects of Pollutants

The CAA was created, in part, ‘‘to

protect and enhance the quality of the

Nation’s air resources so as to promote

the public health and welfare and the

productive capacity of its population’’

[42 U.S.C. 7401(b)]. This proposed

regulation would protect the public

health by reducing emissions of HAPs

from wool fiberglass manufacturing

facilities. This proposed regulation is

technology-based, i.e., based on MACT.

Emission data collected during

development of this proposed NESHAP

show that several HAPs are emitted

from wool fiberglass manufacturing

plants and will be reduced by

implementation of the standard. The

proposed emission limits would reduce

emissions of three particulate metal

HAPs: chromium, arsenic, and lead

from glass melting furnaces. The organic

HAPs (formaldehyde, phenol, and

methanol) are emitted from wool

fiberglass manufacturing lines and

would also be reduced by the proposed

standard. In addition to these HAPs and

as a result of the control of the metal

HAPs, the proposed standard also

would reduce emissions of PM, which

is regulated under the CAA as a criteria

pollutant, and volatile organic

compounds (VOC). More information on

PM can be found in EPA’s criteria

document for PM emissions. Following

is a summary of the potential health

effects caused by exposure to these

pollutants.

Three metals—arsenic, chromium,

and lead—appear on the section 112(b)

list of HAPs and are emitted from glass

melting furnaces. Long-term inhalation

exposure to arsenic is strongly

associated with lung cancer, and also

irritates the skin and mucous

membranes. The EPA has classified

arsenic as a Class A, known human

carcinogen. The effects of inhaling

chromium depend on whether the

oxidation state of the metal is trivalent

or hexavalent. Trivalent chromium is an

essential nutrient, and is substantially

less toxic than hexavalent chromium.

Both types of chromium irritate the

respiratory tract. Hexavalent chromium

inhalation is associated with lung

cancer, and EPA has classified it as a

Class A, known human carcinogen. Data

are insufficient to classify trivalent

chromium as to human carcinogenicity.
15230 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Lead exposure damages the central

nervous system, especially in children,

who may suffer decreased IQ and other

neurobehavioral deficits. Children and

adults exposed to higher doses of lead

may experience anemia, kidney damage,

and high blood pressure. The EPA has

classified lead as a Class B2, probable

human carcinogen, on the basis of

reports of kidney tumors in animal

studies. (See docket items II–A–4, II–A–

6, II–A–10, II–I–6, II–I–7, II–I–8.)

Exposure to formaldehyde, methanol,

and phenol irritates the eyes, skin, and

mucous membranes and causes

conjunctivitis, dermal inflammation,

and respiratory symptoms.

Formaldehyde exposure has been

associated with reproductive effects

such as menstrual disorders and

pregnancy problems in women workers.

The EPA has classified formaldehyde as

a Class B1, probable human carcinogen,

on the basis of findings of nasal cancer

in animal studies, and limited human

data. Phenol has been shown to cause

damage to the liver, kidney,

cardiovascular system, and central

nervous system in animal studies. Acute

exposure to methanol (usually by

ingestion) is well-known to cause

blindness and severe metabolic acidosis,

sometimes leading to death. Chronic

methanol exposure, including

inhalation, may cause central

disturbances possibly leading to

blindness. Data are not sufficient to

classify either phenol or methanol as to

potential human carcinogenicity. (See

docket items II–A–7, II–A–9, II–I–2, II–

I–3, II–I–4.)

Formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol

also are VOCs, which are precursors to

ozone formation. Ambient ozone can

cause damage to lung tissue, reduction

of lung function, and increased

sensitivity of the lung to other irritants.

Several provisions of the CAA are aimed

at reducing emissions of VOC.

Additional information on the health

effects of ozone are included in EPA’s

Criteria document, which support the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for ozone.

The EPA does recognize that the

degree of adverse health effects can

range from mild to severe. The extent

and degree to which the health effects

may be experienced is dependent upon

(1) the ambient concentrations observed

in the area (e.g., as influenced by

emission rates, meteorological

conditions, and terrain), (2) the

frequency of and duration of exposures,

(3) characteristics of exposed

individuals (e.g., genetics, age, preexisting health conditions, and

lifestyles), and (4) pollutant-specific

characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life in

the environment, bioaccumulation, and

persistence).

D. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

Industry Profile

Wool fiberglass products are primarily

used as thermal and acoustical

insulation for buildings, automobiles,

aircraft, appliances, ductwork, and

pipes. Other uses include liquid and air

filtration. Approximately 90 percent of

the wool fiberglass currently produced

is for building insulation products.

Wool fiberglass is currently

manufactured in the United States by

five companies operating 27 plants in 15

states. According to the size definition

applied to this industry by the U.S.

Small Business Administration (750

company employees or less), none of

these firms is classified as a small

business. These plants operate a total of

74 manufacturing lines.

Wool fiberglass is manufactured in a

process that forms thin fibers from

molten glass. A typical wool fiberglass

manufacturing line consists of the

following processes: (1) Preparation of

molten glass, (2) formation of fibers into

a wool fiberglass mat, (3) curing the

binder-coated fiberglass mat, (4) cooling

the mat (not always present), and (5)

backing, cutting, and packaging. Wool

fiberglass manufacturing plants

typically contain one or more

manufacturing lines.

Raw materials for the glass batch are

weighed, mixed, and conveyed to the

glass melting furnace, which may be

gas-fired, electric, or gas and electric

combined. The primary component of

wool fiberglass is sand, but it also

includes varying quantities of feldspar,

sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric

acid, and many other materials. Cullet,

crushed recycled glass, is a primary

component in most batches and is

required by Executive Order for Federal

agency purchases and by law in certain

States. Two methods of forming fibers

are used in the industry. In the rotary

spin (RS) process, centrifugal force

causes molten glass to flow through

small holes in the wall of a rapidly

rotating cylinder. In the flame

attenuation (FA) process, molten glass

flows by gravity from a small furnace, or

pot, to form threads that are then

attenuated (stretched to the point of

breaking) with air and/or flame.

After the fibers are formed, they are

sprayed with a binder and collected as

a mat on a moving conveyor. The

purpose of the binder is to hold the

fibers together and its composition

varies with product type. Typically, the

binder consists of a solution of phenolformaldehyde resin, water, urea, lignin,

silane, and ammonia. The conveyor

carries the newly formed mat through

an oven for curing of the thermosetting

resin and then through a cooling

section. Some products do not require

curing and/or cooling. FA

manufacturing lines do not have cooling

processes.

No Federal air standards specifically

apply to HAP emissions from wool

fiberglass production plants. Emission

limits for PM in the new source

performance standards (NSPS) for glass

manufacturing plants (40 CFR part 60,

subpart CC) are applicable to gas-fired

and modified process glass-melting

furnaces in the wool fiberglass industry

that were constructed, modified, or

reconstructed after June 15, 1979. The

NSPS for wool fiberglass insulation

manufacturing plants (40 CFR part 60,

subpart PPP) limits PM emissions from

wool fiberglass insulation

manufacturing lines using the RS

forming process that were constructed,

modified, or reconstructed after

February 7, 1984. The NSPS does not

require controls for VOC or organic

HAPs.

As a result of the NSPS and State

requirements, PM controls are in place

for most glass-melting furnaces. Of the

56 gas and electric furnaces (including

gas/electric combinations), 37 are

equipped with baghouses or

electrostatic precipitators (ESPs).

Among those furnaces without add-on

controls are 12 electric furnaces that

control PM emissions through their

design and operation.

Controls also are in place for RS

manufacturing lines. All 40 RS forming

processes control, to varying degrees,

organic emissions using one or more of

the several process modifications

available to this industry. Of the 43

curing ovens, 14 are equipped with a

thermal incinerator. Cooling process

emissions are uncontrolled for organic

HAP emissions.

Because of the differences in

emissions potential, limitations on the

application of process controls, and the

dedication of lines to certain product

categories, FA forming processes are

separated into four subcategories: light

density, automotive, heavy density, and

pipe products. None of the light density

or automotive FA forming processes are

equipped with HAP controls. In a few

instances, FA forming processes that

produce heavy density products, are

controlled using process modifications.

All FA forming processes producing

pipe products use process

modifications. None of the 31 curing

ovens on FA manufacturing lines are

equipped with HAP emission controls.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15231

E. Pollution Prevention

Pollution prevention is a partial basis

for the emission standards for RS and

FA manufacturing lines. The emission

standard for RS manufacturing lines is

formulated as the sum of the MACT

floor emission levels for forming,

curing, and cooling where process

modification is the MACT floor for

forming processes, incineration is the

MACT floor for curing ovens, and no

control is the MACT floor for cooling

processes. The emission standards for

new and existing FA manufacturing

lines producing pipe products and new

FA manufacturing lines producing

heavy-density products are the sum of

the MACT floor emission levels for

forming and curing (there are no

separate cooling processes on FA

manufacturing lines). Process

modification is the MACT floor for

forming processes and no control is the

MACT floor for curing ovens. By

formulating the standard as a 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, we have

allowed tradeoffs 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. 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 proposed emission limit 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.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

The proposed NESHAP applies to

each of the following existing and newly

constructed sources: glass-melting

furnaces located at a wool fiberglass

manufacturing plant (Standard

Industrial Classification [SIC] code

3296), RS manufacturing lines that

produce building insulation, and FA

manufacturing lines producing pipe

insulation. The proposed NESHAP also

applies to new FA manufacturing lines

producing heavy density products.

Facilities that manufacture mineral

wool from rock or slag are not subject

to the proposed rule but are subject to

a separate NESHAP for mineral wool

production. Provisions are included in

the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR

part 63, subpart A) for the owner or

operator to obtain a determination of

applicability. A facility that is

determined to be an area source would

not be subject to the NESHAP.

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

Emission limits for PM are proposed

for glass-melting furnaces. Because the

MACT floor for existing and the MACT

floor for new glass-melting furnaces are

the same, the same emission limit

applies to both new and existing

sources. Emission limits for

formaldehyde also are proposed for each

new or existing RS manufacturing line,

each new and existing FA

manufacturing line producing pipe

insulation, and each new FA

manufacturing line producing heavy

density products.

A surrogate approach, where PM

serves as a surrogate for HAP metals and

formaldehyde serves as a surrogate for

organic HAPs, is employed to allow

easier and less expensive testing and

monitoring requirements. The proposed

emission limits are in the same format

(mass of emissions per unit of

production) as the existing NSPS for

glass-melting furnaces and for wool

fiberglass plants—kilograms per

megagram (kg/Mg) or pound per ton (lb/

ton) of glass pulled. Application of the

proposed emission limits to the

manufacturing line (forming, curing,

and cooling) is consistent with the

existing NSPS and the use of a kg/Mg

(lb/ton) format recognizes that common

industry practice is to vent more than

one process unit to common ductwork/

controls. This format also provides

greater flexibility in achieving

compliance with the use of pollution

prevention measures, especially process

modifications that provide the same

environmental benefits without the

need to purchase add-on control

devices. The proposed emission limits

are presented in metric units in Table

2(a) and English units in Table 2(b).

The proposed emission limits for

existing sources are based on the

performance of the control technology

identified as the MACT floor. The

MACT floor for existing glass-melting

furnaces is an ESP or a baghouse.

Because well-designed and -operated

ESPs and baghouses, which are the

MACT floor for existing glass-melting

furnaces, represent the best technologies

available for controlling PM emissions,

including HAP metals, the MACT floor

for new sources is the same.

TABLE 2(a).—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW AND EXISTING GLASS-MELTING FURNACES AND RS

AND FA MANUFACTURING LINES IN WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING PLANTS

[Metric units]

Process

Emission limit

Existing New

Furnace ............................................................. 0.25 kg of PM per Mg of glass pulled .............. 0.25 kg of PM per Mg of glass pulled.

RS Manufacturing Line ..................................... 0.6 kg of formaldehyde per Mg of glass pulled 0.40 kg of formaldehyde per Mg of glass

pulled.

Pipe Insulation Pipe Insulation

FA Manufacturing Line ...................................... 3.4 kg of formaldehyde per Mg of glass pulled 3.4 kg of formaldehyde per Mg of glass pulled.

Heavy Density Heavy Density

None ................................................................. 3.9 kg of formaldehyde per Mg of glass pulled.
15232 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2(b).—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW AND EXISTING GLASS-MELTING FURNACES AND RS

AND FA MANUFACTURING LINES IN WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING PLANTS

[English units]

Process

Emission limit

Existing New

Furnace ............................................................. 0.50 lb of PM per ton of glass pulled ............... 0.50 lb of PM per ton of glass pulled.

RS Manufacturing Line ..................................... 1.2 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 0.80 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass

pulled.

Pipe Insulation Pipe Insulation

FA Manufacturing Line ...................................... 6.8 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 6.8 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled.

Heavy Density Heavy Density

None ................................................................. 7.8 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled.

The MACT floor for each new or

existing RS manufacturing line is

represented by the use of process

modification(s) for the forming process

and a thermal incinerator for each

curing oven. The MACT floor for

cooling processes on RS manufacturing

lines is no control because none of the

existing cooling processes are controlled

for HAPs. According to the industry,

some existing plants will have to

upgrade their process modifications on

forming in order to meet the proposed

emission limit; none will have to install

incinerators on curing to comply with

the standard. Process modifications are

also the basis for the proposed MACT

floor for forming processes on each new

and existing FA manufacturing line

producing pipe insulation and each new

FA manufacturing line producing

heavy-density products. Because none

of the curing processes on FA

manufacturing lines are controlled, the

MACT floor is no control.

C. Performance Test and Compliance

Provisions

A one-time performance test would

demonstrate initial compliance with the

proposed emission limits. Under the

proposed NESHAP, the owner or

operator would measure PM emissions

to the atmosphere from affected glassmelting furnaces using EPA Method 5 in

40 CFR part 60, appendix A and

§ 63.1389 (Test methods and

procedures) of the proposed rule. EPA

Method 316, ‘‘Sampling and Analysis

for Formaldehyde from Stationary

Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool

Fiberglass Industries,’’ or Method 318,

‘‘Extractive FTIR Method for the

Measurement of Emissions from the

Mineral Wool and the Wool Fiberglass

Industries’’ would be used to measure

formaldehyde emissions. Methods 316

and 318 are being proposed

concurrently with this proposed rule.

Using information from the tests, the

owner or operator would determine

compliance with the applicable

emission limit using the instructions

and equations in the proposed NESHAP.

During the initial performance test, the

owner or operator also would monitor

and record the glass pull rate of the

furnace during each of the three test

runs and determine the emission rate for

each run in kilograms (pounds) of

emission per megagram (ton) of glass

pulled (kg/Mg [lb/ton]). A determination

of compliance would be based on the

average of the three individual test runs.

If an ESP is used to control emissions

from a glass-melting furnace, the

proposed NESHAP requires the owner

or operator to establish the ESP

operating parameter(s) that will be used

to monitor compliance. For example,

the secondary voltage of each ESP

electrical field may be monitored to

determine proper ESP operations.

During the initial performance test, the

owner or operator would establish the

parameters and the range of these

parameter values to be used to monitor

compliance with the PM emission limit.

If a glass-melting furnace is operated

without the use of an add-on PM control

device, the owner or operator must

establish the furnace operating

parameter(s) that will be used to

monitor compliance. On cold top

electric furnaces, for example, the

temperature 18 to 24 inches above the

glass melt may be used to indicate

proper furnace operations. The owner or

operator would establish the range of

parameter values during the initial

performance test to be used to monitor

compliance with the PM emission limit.

To determine compliance with the

proposed emission limits for new and

existing RS manufacturing lines, the

owner or operator would measure

formaldehyde emissions to the

atmosphere from forming, curing, and

cooling processes and sum the

emissions from these processes. For new

and existing FA manufacturing lines

producing pipe products and for new

lines producing heavy-density products,

the owner or operator would measure

emissions to the atmosphere from the

forming and curing processes and sum

the emissions. Using information from

the tests, the owner or operator would

convert the emission test results to the

units of the standard using the

instructions and equations in the

proposed NESHAP.

The owner or operator would conduct

the initial performance test for each new

or existing RS manufacturing line while

making building insulation product.

Building insulation is defined in the

proposed NESHAP as wool fiberglass

insulation having a loss on ignition

(LOI) of less than 8 percent and a

density of less than 0.03 grams per cubic

centimeter (g/cm3), or 2 pounds per

cubic foot (lb/ft3). Initial performance

tests for FA manufacturing lines would

be conducted on new lines while

manufacturing heavy-density products

(LOI of 11 to 25 percent and a density

of 0.01 to 0.05 g/cm3 [0.5 to 3 lb/ft3])

and on new and existing lines while

manufacturing pipe products (LOI of 8

to 14 percent and a density of 0.05 to

0.1 g/cm3 [3 to 6 lb/ft3]).

During performance tests on RS

manufacturing lines producing building

insulation and certain FA

manufacturing lines, the owner or

operator would record the LOI 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 would be

conducted using the resin having the

highest free formaldehyde content that

the owner or operator expects to use on

that line. After the performance test, if

the owner or operator wants to use a

resin with a higher free formaldehyde

content or change the binder

formulation, another emission test must

be performed to demonstrate

compliance. If the owner or operator

uses forming process modifications to

comply, the process parameters (such as

binder solids, binder application rate, or

LOI) and their associated levels that will
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15233

1Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

2Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

be used to monitor compliance must be

established during the performance test.

After the performance test, if the owner

or operator wants to operate the forming

process parameters outside the

performance test levels, additional

performance tests would be required to

verify that the source is still in

compliance. If a wet scrubbing control

device is used to control formaldehyde

emissions from an RS manufacturing

line producing building insulation or

from certain FA manufacturing lines,

the owner or operator must establish the

operating ranges 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. The owner or

operator of a scrubber would also

monitor and record the LOI, the free

formaldehyde content of the resin used,

and the formulation of the binder used

during the performance test. If the

owner or operator plans to operate the

scrubber in such a way that the pressure

drop, liquid flow rate, or chemical

additive or chemical feed rate exceeds

the values established during the

performance tests, additional testing

must be performed to demonstrate

compliance.

The proposed rule would allow the

owner or operator of RS manufacturing

lines and FA manufacturing lines

subject to the NESHAP to conduct shortterm experimental production runs,

where the formaldehyde content or

other process parameter deviates from

levels established during previous

performance tests, without conducting

additional performance tests. The owner

or operator would have to apply for

approval from the Administrator or

delegated State agency to conduct such

experimental production runs. The

application would include information

on the nature and duration of the test

runs including plans to perform

emission testing. Such experimental

production runs are important to

industry and allow them to develop new

products, improve existing products,

and determine the effects on product

quality and on emissions of process

modifications being considered, such as

binder reformulation.

If a thermal incinerator is used to

comply with the proposed emission

limit for formaldehyde, the owner or

operator would measure the incinerator

operating temperature that will be used

to monitor compliance. During the

initial performance test, the owner or

operator would continuously record the

incinerator’s operating temperature and

determine the average temperature

during each 1-hour test run. The average

of the three test runs would be used to

monitor incinerator compliance.

D. Monitoring Requirements

All owners or operators subject to the

proposed NESHAP would submit an

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan as part of their

application for a part 70 permit. The

plan would include procedures for the

proper operation and maintenance of

processes and control devices used to

comply with the proposed emission

limits as well as the corrective actions

to be taken when control device or

process parameters deviate from

allowable levels established during

performance testing. The plan would

also identify the control device

parameters or process parameters to be

monitored for compliance, a monitoring

schedule, and procedures for keeping

records to document compliance.

Under the proposed NESHAP, each

baghouse used on a glass-melting

furnace would have installed a bag leak

detection system that is equipped with

an audible alarm that automatically

sounds when an increase in particulate

emissions above a predetermined level

is detected. The monitor must be

capable of detecting PM emissions at

concentrations of 1.0 milligram per

actual cubic meter (0.0004 grains per

actual cubic foot) and provide an output

of relative or absolute PM emissions.

Such a device would serve as an

indicator of the performance of the

baghouse and would provide an

indication of when maintenance of the

baghouse is needed. An alarm by itself

does not indicate noncompliance with

the PM emission limit. An alarm would

indicate an increase in PM emissions

and trigger an inspection of the

baghouse to determine the cause of the

alarm. The owner or operator would

initiate corrective actions according to

the procedures in their operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan. The

source would be considered out of

compliance upon failure to initiate

corrective actions within 1 hour of the

alarm. If the alarm is activated for more

than 5 percent of the total operating

time during the 6-month reporting

period, the owner or operator must

implement a Quality Improvement Plan

(QIP) consistent with subpart D of the

draft approach to compliance assurance

monitoring.1

For each ESP controlling PM

emissions from a glass-melting furnace,

the owner or operator would submit as

part of their operations, maintenance,

and monitoring plan, a description of

how the ESP is to be operated and

maintained, the ESP parameter(s) to be

monitored, a monitoring schedule, and

recordkeeping requirements that

document compliance. Corrective action

would be taken if the range of

acceptable values for the selected ESP

operating parameter(s), such as

secondary voltage, established during

the initial performance test is exceeded

based on any 3-hour average of the

monitored parameter. A deviation

outside the established range would

trigger an inspection of the control

device to determine the cause of the

deviation and to initiate corrective

actions according to the procedures in

the facility’s operations, maintenance,

and monitoring plan. Failure to initiate

corrective actions within 1 hour of the

deviation would be considered

noncompliance. If the ESP parameter

values are outside the range established

during the performance test for more

than 5 percent of total operating time in

a 6-month reporting period, the owner

or operator would implement a QIP

consistent with subpart D of the draft

approach to compliance assurance

monitoring.2 If the ESP parameter values

are outside the range for more than 10

percent of total operating time in a 6-

month reporting period, the owner or

operator would be in violation of the

standard.

Under the proposed NESHAP, the

owner or operator of a glass-melting

furnace whose emissions are not

exhausted to an air pollution control

device for PM control, would submit as

part of their operations, maintenance,

and monitoring plan a description of

how the furnace is to be operated and

maintained, the furnace parameter(s) to

be monitored for compliance purposes,

a monitoring schedule, and

recordkeeping requirements that

document compliance. Corrective action

would be taken if the range of

acceptable values for the selected

operating parameter(s), such as air

temperature above the glass melt in a

cold top electric furnace, established

during the initial performance test is

exceeded based on any 3-hour average

of the monitored parameter. A deviation

outside the established range would

trigger an inspection of the glass-melting

furnace to determine the cause of the

deviation and to initiate corrective

actions according to the procedures in

the facility’s operations, maintenance,

and monitoring plan. Failure to initiate

corrective actions within 1 hour of the

deviation would be considered

noncompliance. If the furnace operating
15234 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

3Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

4Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

5Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

6Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

parameter values are outside the range

established during the performance test

for more than 5 percent of total

operating time in a 6-month reporting

period, the owner or operator would

implement a QIP consistent with

subpart D of the draft approach to

compliance assurance monitoring.3 If

the furnace parameter values are outside

the range for more than 10 percent of

total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

would be in violation of the standard.

Under the proposed NESHAP, the

owner or operator would continuously

monitor and record the glass pull rate

on all existing and new glass-melting

furnaces. The exception to this would

be existing furnaces that do not have

continuous monitoring equipment. Such

furnaces would measure the glass pull

rate at least once per day. If the 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 actions

within 1 hour. 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 reporting period, a QIP must be

implemented consistent with subpart D

of the draft approach to compliance

assurance monitoring. 4 If the glass pull

rate exceeds (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 reporting period, it is a

violation of the standard. Under the

proposed NESHAP, the owner or

operator would be allowed to do

additional performance testing to verify

compliance while operating at glass pull

rates that exceed the level established

during the initial performance test. The

additional performance testing would be

required to demonstrate compliance

with the applicable formaldehyde

emission limits for the affected

manufacturing line only.

RS manufacturing lines that produce

building insulation and certain FA

manufacturing lines would monitor and

record the free formaldehyde content of

each resin lot, the binder formulation of

each batch, and product LOI at least

once each day. If resin-free

formaldehyde content exceeds the

performance test levels, the owner or

operator would be in violation of the

standard. Under the proposed NESHAP,

the binder formulation must not deviate

from the formulation specifications used

during the performance test.

An owner or operator of affected RS

or FA manufacturing lines that use

process modifications to comply with

the emission standard would include in

their written operations, maintenance,

and monitoring plan how the process

will be operated and maintained and

identify the process parameters to be

monitored, a monitoring schedule, and

recordkeeping requirements that

document compliance. Examples of

process parameters that might be used

to monitor compliance include product

LOI, binder solids, and binder

application rate. The plan would also

have to demonstrate that the

parameter(s) to be monitored correlate

with formaldehyde emissions. The plan

would include procedures for

establishing maximum or minimum

values, as appropriate, based on initial

performance testing. Should the process

parameter(s) deviate from the range

established during the performance test,

the owner or operator must inspect the

process to determine the cause of the

deviation and initiate corrective action

within 1 hour of the deviation. If the

process parameter(s) is outside the

performance test range for more than 5

percent of total operating time during a

6-month reporting period, the owner or

operator would implement a QIP

consistent with subpart D of the draft

approach to compliance assurance

monitoring. 5 If the process parameter(s)

is outside the range for more than 10

percent of total operating time in a 6-

month reporting period, the owner or

operator would be in violation of the

standard.

An owner or operator who uses a wet

scrubbing control device to control

formaldehyde emissions from an RS

manufacturing line producing building

insulation or from certain FA

manufacturing lines would

continuously monitor and record the

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. Under the proposed monitoring

provisions, corrective action would be

taken if any 3-hour average scrubber

parameter is outside the range of

acceptable values established during the

initial performance test. If there was a

deviation outside the established range,

the owner or operator would inspect the

process to determine the cause of the

deviation and to initiate corrective

actions according to the procedures in

the facility’s operations, maintenance,

and monitoring plan. The owner or

operator of the scrubber would be out of

compliance upon failure to initiate

corrective actions within 1 hour of the

deviation. If any scrubber parameter is

outside the performance test range for

more than 5 percent of the total

operating time in a 6-month reporting

period, the owner or operator would

implement a QIP consistent with

subpart D of the draft approach to

compliance assurance monitoring. 6 If

any scrubber parameter is outside the

range for more than 10 percent of total

operating time in a 6-month reporting

period, the owner or operator would be

in violation of the standard.

If an incinerator is used to control

formaldehyde emissions from a

manufacturing line or from individual

forming or curing processes, the owner

or operator would continuously monitor

and record the operating temperature of

each incinerator. The temperature

monitoring device would be installed in

the incinerator firebox. This is typically

done using a thermocouple (a standard

feature on most incinerators) and a strip

chart recorder or data logger. Following

the initial performance test, the owner

or operator must maintain the

temperature so that the temperature,

averaged over a 3-hour period, does not

fall below the average temperature

established during the initial

performance test. A temperature below

the performance test average would be

considered a violation of the standard.

The owner or operator may modify

any of the control device or process

parameter levels established during the

initial performance tests for compliance

monitoring. The proposed NESHAP

contains provisions that would allow

the owner or operator to change add-on

control device and process parameter

values from those established during the

initial performance tests by performing

additional emission testing to verify

compliance.

As required by the NESHAP general

provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),

the owner or operator must develop and

implement a separate startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan. The

plan would include procedures for the

inspection and determination of the

cause of a process or control device

malfunction and the corrective

procedures to be followed to remedy the

malfunction.

E. Notification, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

All notification, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements in the general
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15235

provisions would apply to wool

fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

These include: (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.

If deviations from established

parameters are reported, the owner or

operator must report quarterly until a

request to return the reporting frequency

to semiannual is approved. In addition

to the requirements of the general

provisions, the owner or operator would

maintain records of the following, as

applicable:

(1) Bag leak detection system alarms,

including the date and time, with a brief

explanation of the cause of the alarm

and the corrective action taken;

(2) ESP monitoring plan parameter

values, such as the secondary voltage of

each electrical field, for each ESP used

to control PM emissions from a glassmelting furnace, including any period

when the parameter values deviate from

those established during the

performance test, with a brief

explanation of the cause of the deviation

and the corrective action taken;

(3) Uncontrolled glass-melting furnace

operating parameter values, such as the

temperature readings taken above the

molten glass in cold top electric

furnaces, including any period when the

operating parameter values deviate from

those established during the

performance test, with a brief

explanation of the cause of the deviation

and the corrective action taken;

(4) The LOI and product density for

each bonded product manufactured on

an RS or FA manufacturing line subject

to this NESHAP;

(5) The free formaldehyde content of

each resin lot and the binder

formulation of each batch used in the

production of bonded wool fiberglass on

RS or FA manufacturing lines subject to

this NESHAP;

(6) Process parameters for RS and FA

manufacturing lines that comply with

the emission standards using process

modifications, including any period

when the parameter levels deviate from

levels established during the

performance test and the corrective

actions taken;

(7) Scrubber pressure drop, scrubbing

liquid flow rate, and any chemical

additive (including chemical feed rate to

the scrubber), including any period

when the parameter levels deviate from

those established during the

performance tests and the corrective

action taken,

(8) Incinerator operating temperature,

including any period when the

temperature falls below the average

level established during the

performance test, with a brief

explanation of the cause of the deviation

and the corrective action taken;

(9) 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 with a brief explanation of the

cause of the exceedance and the

corrective action taken.

Initial performance tests and

compliance assurance monitoring

requirements for forming process

modifications apply only when building

insulation products are being

manufactured on RS manufacturing

lines and when pipe products are being

manufactured on new and existing FA

manufacturing lines and heavy-density

products are being manufactured on

new FA manufacturing lines. The LOI

must be monitored to demonstrate to

EPA the products being manufactured

and which lines are subject to the

standard. During periods when other

products are being manufactured, it is

expected that the parameter values,

such as LOI or binder solids, may vary

from those levels established during the

initial performance tests for building

insulation on RS manufacturing lines

and heavy-density or pipe products on

FA manufacturing lines. 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 compatible

computer software.

IV. Impacts of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

All plants in the industry would be

subject to the proposed NESHAP unless

the owner or operator demonstrates the

facility is not a major source according

to the requirements in the NESHAP

general provisions. Seven of the 30

electric or gas/electric combination

glass-melting furnaces are not controlled

and are expected to need to install a

baghouse or ESP to comply with the

proposed emission limit. All gas-fired

glass-melting furnaces are well

controlled and are expected to be in

compliance with the NESHAP. Certain

uncontrolled glass-melting furnaces,

such as cold top electric furnaces,

maintain low PM emissions as a result

of their design and operation and are

expected to meet the emission limits

without the addition of control devices.

Some RS forming processes would need

to upgrade their process modifications

to meet the emission limits for

manufacturing lines.

B. Air Quality Impacts (Docket Item II–

B–22)

Most of the existing glass-melting

furnaces are already well controlled. At

the current high level of control,

nationwide emissions of PM are about

750 Mg/yr (830 ton/yr). Because of the

existence of controls on all gas furnaces

and the emission limiting design and

operation of cold top electric furnaces,

no emission reduction is expected from

gas or cold top electric furnaces under

the proposed NESHAP. There are 30

electric or combination gas/electric

furnaces of which 23 are well

controlled. Under the proposed

NESHAP, it is expected that baghouses

would be added to the seven

uncontrolled electric glass-melting

furnaces, which would result in a

reduction in nationwide PM emissions

of 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) (docket item II–B–20). Impacts

on new furnaces will vary. New gasfired glass-melting furnaces would be

adequately controlled, even in the

absence of the proposed NESHAP, as a

result of the NSPS for glass

manufacturing plants (40 CFR part 60,

subpart CC). Because of their design and

operation, new cold top electric

furnaces would meet the proposed

emission limit for new furnaces without

add-on controls. Only new electric

furnaces are expected to be impacted by

the proposed emission limits for new

glass melting furnaces. New electric

glass-melting furnaces are not subject to

the NSPS for glass manufacturing plants

and are likely, under the proposed

NESHAP, to need controls to comply

with the emission limit for new

furnaces. The PM emission reduction

from new electric glass-melting furnaces

resulting from the proposed emission

limit for new furnaces would be 160

Mg/yr (180 ton/yr) in the fifth year of

the standard. Current nationwide

emissions of metal HAPs from existing

furnaces is 270 kg/yr (600 lb/yr). Under

the proposed NESHAP, metal HAP

emissions from existing furnaces and

new furnaces would be reduced by 9 kg/
15236 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

yr (20 lb/yr) and 2 kg/yr (5 lb/yr),

respectively.

Nationwide emissions of

formaldehyde from existing

manufacturing lines are estimated to be

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

level of control. Emissions from RS

manufacturing lines account for about

70 percent of the formaldehyde

emissions. Implementation of the

proposed NESHAP would 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 would be no emission

reductions from FA manufacturing lines

because, under the proposed emission

limits, no additional control of FA

manufacturing lines is necessary and no

new FA manufacturing lines are

anticipated. 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.

Nationwide baseline emissions and

emission reduction estimates for glassmelting furnaces and manufacturing

lines are summarized in metric units in

Table 3(a) and in English units in Table

3(b).

TABLE 3(a).—NATIONWIDE ANNUAL EMISSIONS

[Metric units]

Source Pollutant

Baseline

emissions

(Mg/yr)

Emission reduction

(Mg/yr)a

Glass-Melting Furnaces .................................................. Metal HAP ...................................................................... 0.3 0.01

PM .................................................................................. 750 760

RS Manufacturing Lines .................................................. Formaldehyde ................................................................ 1,220 530

FA Manufacturing Lines .................................................. Formaldehyde ................................................................ 550 0

All Sources ...................................................................... Total HAPs ..................................................................... 1,770 530

PM (Non-HAP) ............................................................... 750 760

Total Pollutants .............................................................. 2,520 1,290

aEmission reduction in the fifth year of the standard. Includes emission reductions from new sources.

TABLE 3(b).—NATIONWIDE ANNUAL EMISSIONS

[English units]

Source Pollutant

Baseline

emissions

(ton/yr)

Emission reduction

(ton/yr)a

Glass-Melting Furnaces .................................................. Metal HAP ...................................................................... 0.3 0.01

PM .................................................................................. 830 840

RS Manufacturing Lines .................................................. Formaldehyde ................................................................ 1,350 580

FA Manufacturing Lines .................................................. Formaldehyde ................................................................ 600 0

All Sources ...................................................................... Total HAPs ..................................................................... 1,950 580

PM (Non-HAP) ............................................................... 830 840

Total Pollutants .............................................................. 2,780 1,420

aEmission reduction in the fifth year of the standard. Includes emission reductions from new sources.

An analysis of emissions from a

medium-sized (27,200 Mg/yr [30,000

ton/yr] capacity) model electric furnace

shows that metal HAP emissions would

be reduced by about 0.001 Mg/yr (0.001

ton/yr) and PM emissions by an

estimated 67 Mg/yr (74 ton/yr) from

both an existing and a new electric

furnace over an uncontrolled electric

furnace. For a medium model plant

(99,800 Mg/yr [110,000 ton/yr]

capacity), metal HAP emissions from

existing and new electric furnaces

would be reduced by 0.004 Mg/yr (0.004

ton/yr) over a plant with uncontrolled

electric furnaces; PM emissions would

be reduced by an estimated 250 Mg/yr

(270 ton/yr). Under the proposed

NESHAP, there would be no emission

reductions associated with existing gasfired or cold top electric furnaces

because all gas furnaces are already well

controlled and no additional controls

would be required for cold top electric

furnaces to meet the proposed emission

limits. Because new gas furnaces would

be controlled as a result of the NSPS for

glass manufacturing sources (40 CFR

part 60, subpart CC), no additional

emission reductions from new gas

furnaces would occur under the

proposed NESHAP. As with existing

cold top electric furnaces, new cold top

electric furnaces would be able to meet

the proposed emission limit without

additional control.

Based on model line and plant

analyses, formaldehyde emissions from

a medium-sized (27,200 Mg/yr [30,000

ton/yr] capacity) RS manufacturing line

producing building insulation would be

reduced by an estimated 8 Mg/yr (9 ton/

yr). Emissions of formaldehyde from a

medium-sized plant (99,800 Mg/yr

[110,000 ton/yr] capacity) containing

two large RS manufacturing lines would

be reduced by an estimated 30 Mg/yr

(33 ton/yr). Formaldehyde emissions

from a new RS manufacturing line

would be reduced an estimated 33 Mg/

yr (37 ton/yr). No emission reduction

would be achieved for new or existing

medium-sized FA manufacturing lines

producing pipe insulation since there

would be no additional controls under

the proposed NESHAP. The

formaldehyde emission reduction from

a new medium-sized (1,800 Mg/yr

[2,000 ton/yr] production capacity) FA

manufacturing line producing heavydensity products would total about 2.8

Mg/yr (3.1 ton/yr) although no new FA

manufacturing lines are projected.

Additional information on model plants

and lines is included in the docket.

Because EPA proposes to regulate

formaldehyde emissions as a surrogate

measure for organic HAP emissions

from manufacturing lines, only

formaldehyde emissions data are

presented here, although when the

formaldehyde emission limit is met,

phenol and methanol emissions will

also be reduced. Where incineration is

used to control formaldehyde emissions
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15237

from curing, emissions of phenol and

methanol will also be controlled.

Emissions data to quantify the degree of

reduction in emissions of phenol and

methanol as a result of increased levels

of forming process modifications are not

available. The results of emissions tests

conducted at wool fiberglass

manufacturing plants, including phenol

and methanol test results, are contained

in the docket.

C. Water Impacts

Because this standard is based on the

use of baghouses, dry ESPs, thermal

incinerators, and process modifications,

there are no water pollution impacts. A

few existing emission sources may use

scrubbers to control HAP emissions

although no additional sources are

expected to add wet scrubbers for the

control of HAP emissions. Therefore, no

water impacts are expected from the

proposed rule.

D. Solid Waste Impacts

The PM captured by the baghouses

added to the seven uncontrolled electric

furnaces will be recycled to the furnace

and no solid or hazardous waste is

generated by the use of thermal

incinerators. No solid waste impacts are

expected from the proposed rule.

E. Energy Impacts (Docket Item II-B–22)

Baghouses require electrical energy to

operate fans. The additional electrical

energy requirements are estimated to be

1.8 thousand megawatt hours per year

(MWh/yr) over current requirements for

seven additional baghouses to be added

to existing sources. Emissions of PM

associated with the additional energy

requirements are estimated to be 0.1

ton/yr as compared to the PM emission

reduction of 700 ton/yr estimated for

installing the seven baghouses on

uncontrolled furnaces. Projected new

RS manufacturing lines would comply

with the proposed standard for new

sources using process modifications on

forming and incinerators on curing. An

additional 2.9 thousand MWh/yr for

electricity and 290 billion Btu/yr of

natural gas would be required for new

incinerators although process

modifications only may be used to

comply with the proposed standard for

new RS manufacturing lines. The total

additional energy required as a result of

this proposed NESHAP is 300 billion

Btu/yr in the fifth year of the standard.

No new FA manufacturing lines are

projected; thus there are no increased

energy requirements under the proposed

standard for new FA manufacturing

lines.

F. Nonair Environmental and Health

Impacts

Reducing HAP levels may help lower

occupational exposure levels and sitespecific levels of PM and VOCs. New or

upgraded process modifications for

forming operations would decrease the

quantity of HAP constituents in binder

formulations. The addition of

baghouses, ESPs, and incinerators may

increase noise levels in the plant area

due to the operation of pollution control

devices where none are currently in

place.

G. Cost Impacts

The EPA analyzed the cost impacts of

the proposed standards for glass-melting

furnaces by developing model lines

based on site-specific information

included in the ICR survey responses

(docket item II–B–21) coupled with cost

algorithms from the OAQPS Cost

Manual (docket item II–A–3). The cost

impacts of the proposed standards on

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities

are based on estimates supplied by wool

fiberglass companies for each of their

manufacturing lines (docket item II–D–

65).

The total nationwide capital and

annual costs for existing glass-melting

furnaces under the proposed NESHAP

are $3.2 million and $1.5 million,

respectively. This represents the cost of

adding baghouses to seven electric

glass-melting furnaces as well as the

monitoring costs of bag leak detection

systems installed on baghouses and

temperature monitors installed on cold

top electric furnaces. Control cost

estimates assume the addition of pulse

jet baghouses with polyester filter bags,

an air-to-cloth ratio of 0.9 actual cubic

meters per minute per square meter (3

acfm/ft2), and a pressure drop of 20 cm

(8 in.) of water column. The estimated

capital and annual costs of control

equipment for a medium electric

furnace (production capacity of 30,000

ton/yr) are $432,000 and $209,000,

respectively. The capital cost includes

the cost of the control device, auxiliary

equipment, and installation, and retrofit

costs. The model furnace cost estimates

do not include the capital and annual

costs for a bag leak detection system

required on all baghouses under the

proposed NESHAP. The EPA estimates

the capital cost of this monitoring

system to be approximately $9,100 per

furnace, with $1,800/yr in annual costs.

Cold top electric furnaces would incur

costs for monitoring an operating

parameter that gives an indication of

furnace performance; for cost estimating

purposes, the cost of monitoring the air

temperature above the molten glass

surface was used. The estimated capital

and annual costs of monitoring the

temperature of cold top electric furnaces

are $1,500 and $240, respectively. For

ESPs, owners or operators are expected

to monitor ESP parameters that they

commonly monitor, such as secondary

voltage, so that no additional

monitoring costs would be incurred.

Because the NSPS for glass

manufacturing sources would regulate

any new gas furnaces, there would be no

additional control costs for new gas

furnaces under the proposed NESHAP.

The NSPS for glass manufacturing

sources does not cover electric furnaces.

Thus, under the proposed NESHAP,

new electric furnaces will incur the cost

associated with adding baghouses as

well as bag leak detection monitoring

systems. The capital and annual costs

associated with a new baghouse would

be $288,000 and $189,000, respectively

in addition to the capital and annual

costs of a bag leak detection system,

$9,100 and $1,800, respectively.

Based on information supplied by the

North American Insulation

Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), 30

RS forming operations would upgrade

their proprietary process modifications

to meet the proposed emission limit for

RS manufacturing lines; none of the

existing curing ovens that are

uncontrolled for HAPs would have to

add an incinerator. No control costs are

associated with complying with the

proposed NESHAP for FA

manufacturing lines. The proposed

monitoring requirements for RS and FA

manufacturing lines, i.e., monitoring

resin free-formaldehyde content,

product LOI and density, other process

parameters, and incinerator operating

temperature, are current industry

practices and would not impose any

additional costs. However, NAIMA

estimates that there would be a one-time

cost per line for testing that would be

needed to establish a correlation

between formaldehyde emissions and

the process parameters to be monitored.

NAIMA estimated the costs of

complying with the proposed standard

for RS manufacturing lines for each of

their lines. Capital costs per line ranged

from $150,000 to $4 million and annual

expenses per line ranged from $100,000

to $400,000. Nationwide capital costs of

upgrading process modifications on 30

RS manufacturing lines were estimated

at $16.3 million with annual costs of

$4.8 million. Annual cost for new RS

manufacturing lines is estimated to be

$0.9 million per line. No FA lines

would require additional controls under

the proposed standard and there would

be no additional control costs. For all

RS and FA manufacturing lines subject
15238 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

to the standard, there would be a onetime cost of $15,000 per line to establish

the process parameter values for

compliance monitoring. Because the

process parameters that are likely to be

used for compliance monitoring are

ones that industry currently monitors,

no additional costs will be incurred for

monitoring beyond the one-time cost of

$15,000 per line.

Total nationwide capital costs for the

standard are estimated at $19.5 million

and annual nationwide costs are

estimated at $6.3 million/yr, including

installation, operation, and maintenance

of emission control and monitoring

systems.

H. Economic Impacts (Docket Item II–A–

12)

The economic analysis of the

proposed NESHAP finds impacts at the

facility and market-level to be modest.

The average market price increases for

both structural and nonstructural wool

fiberglass would 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. For more

detail, see the full economic impact

analysis in the docket.

V. Selection of Proposed Standards

A. Selection of Source Category

Section 112(c) of the Act directs the

Agency to list each category of major

and area sources, as appropriate,

emitting one or more of the 189 HAPs

listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The

EPA published an initial list of source

categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR

31576), and may amend the list at any

time. ‘‘Wool Fiberglass Production’’ is

one of the 174 source categories listed

in the notice.

As defined in the EPA report,

‘‘Documentation for Developing the

Initial Source Category List’’ (docket

item II–A–5), the Wool Fiberglass

Production source category includes any

facility engaged in producing wool

fiberglass from sand, feldspar, sodium

sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, or

any other materials. Facilities that

manufacture mineral wool from rock,

slag, and other similar materials are not

included in the source category. A

separate MACT standard for mineral

wool production is currently under

development.

Before this project began, no

formaldehyde test methods and no HAP

data were available to assess the

effectiveness of control devices in this

industry for controlling HAP emissions.

The EPA and the wool fiberglass

industry worked in a partnership to

address the data needs for the purpose

of establishing a MACT standard.

Through a cooperative effort, EPA and

NAIMA developed methods for

measuring formaldehyde emissions

from wool fiberglass manufacturing

processes. Using information supplied

voluntarily by industry for each wool

fiberglass manufacturing line, EPA

identified processes and control systems

as candidates for emissions testing that

were considered representative of the

MACT floor and MACT for new sources.

EPA and the industry were able to

obtain the necessary emissions data as

a result of these cooperative efforts.

Based on the information collected,

EPA believes it is likely that all but

three wool fiberglass plants are major

sources subject to the proposed

NESHAP. A major source must have the

potential to emit 9.1 Mg/yr (10 ton/yr)

or more of a single HAP or 23 Mg/yr (25

ton/yr) or more of a combination of

HAPs. Three facilities (each with one

line producing bonded products) may

be area sources. At these sites, two of

the three glass-melting furnaces and all

three RS forming processes are

controlled at the MACT floor level.

Because these facilities are not believed

to present an adverse environmental or

health risk, EPA has determined that it

is not necessary to include these wool

fiberglass manufacturing facilities on

the list of area sources required by

section 112(c)(3) of the Act.

On December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941),

EPA published a schedule for the

promulgation of standards for the

sources selected for regulation under

section 112(c) of the Act. According to

this schedule, MACT standards for this

source category must be promulgated no

later than November 15, 1997. If

standards are not promulgated by May

15, 1999 (18 months following the

promulgation deadline), section 112(j)

of the Act requires States or local

agencies with approved permit

programs to issue permits or revise

existing permits containing either an

equivalent emission limitation or an

alternate emission limitation for HAP

control. (See ‘‘Guidelines for MACT

Determinations Under Section 112(j),’’

EPA 453/R–94–026, May 1994.)

B. Selection of Emission Sources

The wool fiberglass manufacturing

source category, as defined in the EPA

report, ‘‘Documentation for Developing

the Initial Source Category List,’’

includes, but is not limited to: (1) The

glass-melting furnace, (2) marble

forming, (3) refining unit, (4) fiber

formation process, (5) binder

application process, (6) curing process,

and (7) cooling process. For the reasons

described below, EPA selected the

forming, curing, and cooling processes

on new and existing RS manufacturing

lines and the forming and curing

processes on existing FA manufacturing

lines producing pipe insulation and on

new FA manufacturing lines producing

pipe insulation or heavy-density

products for control under the proposed

NESHAP. The proposed NESHAP also

covers glass-melting furnaces located at

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

Glass-melting furnaces are generally

large, shallow, and well-insulated

vessels that are heated from above by

gas burners or from within by electrical

current. About 66 percent of the glassmelting furnaces used in the wool

fiberglass industry are all-electric, about

25 percent are gas-fired and about 9

percent are a combination of gas and

electric. Glass pull rates for furnaces

range from 18 to 272 Mg/d (20 to 300

ton/d).

In the glass-melting furnaces, raw

materials (e.g., sand, feldspar, sodium

sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid) are

introduced continuously or in batches

on top of a bed of molten glass, where

they mix and dissolve at temperatures

ranging from 1,500 °C to 17,00 °C (2,700

°F to 3,100 °F), and are transformed by

a series of chemical reactions to molten

glass. Particulate emissions are caused

by entrainment of dust from batch

dumping and the combustion process

and from volatilization of raw materials.

Emissions of chromium result from

entrainment of materials eroded from

the refractory lining of the furnace and

the furnace exhaust stack. Lead and

arsenic are released from the batch

materials and from the use of

contaminated cullet (crushed recycled

glass). Glass-melting furnaces may be

either gas-fired, electric, or a

combination of gas and electric.

Emissions from glass-melting furnaces

are typically controlled by baghouses or

dry ESPs. One type of electric furnace,

the cold top electric furnace, has low

PM emissions without add-on controls

as a result of its design. Operators of

these units maintain a thick crust of raw

materials on top of the molten glass,

which impedes the release of heat and

keeps the air temperature above the

molten glass at or below 120 °C (250 °F).

One of two methods may be used for

the next stage of the process, fiber

formation. In an RS forming process, a

regulated flow of molten glass enters the

center of a rotating spinner. Spinners

are in a linear arrangement, with 2 to 12

spinners on a single line. Centrifugal

action forces the molten glass out of the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15239

spinners through hundreds of small

orifices in the spinner wall to form glass

threads. As the threads exit the spinner,

a high-velocity air jet or a mixture of air

and natural gas flame forces the threads

downward, which attenuates the

threads to form glass fibers.

In the FA forming process, also

known as the ‘‘pot and marble’’ process,

glass marbles that were produced at

separate on- or offsite facilities are fed

into ceramic pots (typically 6 to 28 pots

per line) that are heated to a high

temperature. Glass strands flow by

gravity down through holes in the

bottom of the pot and are directed by

pinch rollers. Following the pinch

rollers, a high-velocity, hightemperature mixture of air and gas flame

is used to attenuate the fibers.

Particulate and organic emissions are

released during the fiber-forming

process due to volatilization of raw

materials and entrainment of fiberglass

particles in the process air stream.

After the fibers are formed, they are

sprayed with a binder. A typical binder

consists of phenol-formaldehyde resin,

water, urea, lignin, silane, and

ammonia. The binder composition used

in the RS and FA forming process is

similar. Air, at a flow rate ranging from

about 430 to 5,100 actual cubic meters

per minute (15,000 to 180,000 acfm),

forces the fibers downward onto a

continuously moving conveyor to form

a mat, which is conveyed to the curing

oven. Emissions of formaldehyde,

phenol, and methanol occur as a result

of the vaporization of the volatile binder

as it comes in contact with hot fibers

and as a result of binder that is not

deposited on the mat but passes through

the conveyor and is exhausted to the

atmosphere. HAP emissions from

forming are controlled by process

modifications, such as resin and binder

chemistry and fiberization technology.

The curing oven drives off moisture

remaining on the fibers and sets the

binder. The temperature of the curing

oven varies for each product, ranging

from about 180 °C to 320 °C (350 °F to

600 °F). Fans are used to draw hot air

through the mat within each of the oven

zones; the hot air may be recycled

within each zone to conserve energy.

The total air flow exiting the oven

ranges from about 200 to 850 actual

cubic meters per minute (7,000 to

30,000 acfm) for the RS process and

from 85 to 480 actual cubic meters per

minute (3,000 to 17,000 acfm) for the FA

process. Emissions of formaldehyde,

phenol, and methanol are the result of

vaporization of volatile compounds in

the binder. Emissions from about onethird of the curing ovens on RS

manufacturing lines are controlled by

thermal incinerators; the remainder are

uncontrolled for organic HAP

emissions. None of the curing ovens on

FA manufacturing lines are controlled

for organic HAPs.

The quantity of binder solids sprayed

onto the glass fibers is governed by the

type of product being manufactured.

Typically, about 70 percent of the

binder applied to the fiberglass remains

on the product. The remainder remains

on the conveyor and is recycled back

into the process via the wash water or

is exhausted with the forming or curing

oven air. Quality control checks are

routinely performed to determine the

product LOI, which ensures that the

correct weight percent of binder is

present in the product.

After curing, the fiber mat is conveyed

to a cooling section, where ambient air

is forced through the mat to eliminate

‘‘hot spots’’ in the product and to

facilitate finishing and packaging.

Cooling air flow rates range from 140 to

990 actual cubic meters per minute

(5,000 to 35,000 acfm). By the time the

mat with its thermally set binder

reaches cooling, emissions of

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol

are relatively small compared to forming

and curing. Cooling processes are not

controlled for HAP emissions. Most FA

manufacturing lines do not have cooling

sections because the product is able to

cool adequately between exiting the

curing oven and reaching the finishing

and handling sections.

At the current level of control,

existing glass-melting furnaces emit

approximately 270 kg/yr (600 lb/yr) of

HAP and 750 Mg/yr (830 ton/yr) of PM.

Under the proposed NESHAP, EPA

expects that seven currently

uncontrolled electric furnaces would

install controls. Electric furnaces

(excluding cold top electric furnaces)

emit an estimated 9 kg/yr (20 lb/yr) of

HAP and about 635 Mg/yr (700 ton/yr)

of PM. Control of these furnaces would

ensure that all furnaces are controlled to

the MACT floor emission level.

Existing cold top electric furnaces (air

temperature above the molten glass of

120 °C [250 °F] or less) are not equipped

with add-on control devices. Particulate

emissions from the 12 existing cold top

electric furnaces are limited by the thick

crust maintained on the molten glass

surface. Emissions are estimated to be

27 kg/yr (60 lb/yr) of HAP and about 55

Mg/yr (60 ton/yr) of PM. These furnaces

are expected to comply with the

proposed emission limit without the

need for add-on control devices. The

EPA considered requiring controls for

cold top electric furnaces and has

determined that the cost effectiveness of

additional controls beyond the floor is

not reasonable.

Manufacture of wool fiberglass

releases an estimated 1,770 Mg/yr (1,950

ton/yr) of formaldehyde from RS and FA

manufacturing lines. The Agency

selected forming, curing, and cooling

processes on all new and existing RS

manufacturing lines and forming and

curing processes on existing FA

manufacturing lines producing pipe

insulation and new FA manufacturing

lines producing pipe insulation or

heavy-density products for control

under the proposed NESHAP. Because

no controls are currently used, the

MACT floor is no control and because

the cost effectiveness of additional

controls beyond the floor is not

reasonable, the Agency is not setting

emission limits for existing FA

manufacturing lines producing lightdensity, automotive, or heavy-density

products or new FA manufacturing lines

producing light-density or automotive

products. Because no plants have

equipped forming or curing processes

on these manufacturing lines with

emission controls, the MACT floor is no

control. The EPA considered beyondthe-floor controls for both RS and FA

manufacturing lines and has determined

that the cost effectiveness of additional

controls does not justify going beyond

the floor.

C. Selection of Pollutants

The EPA proposes to regulate

emissions of formaldehyde, a HAP and

surrogate for phenol and methanol

emissions, and PM emissions, a

surrogate for metal HAP emissions.

Formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, and

the metal HAPs are included on the list

of HAPs under section 112(b) of the Act

and are emitted from wool fiberglass

manufacturing sources.

Formaldehyde is the only organic

HAP emitted from the wool fiberglass

industry that has been identified to be

a potential carcinogen. EPA proposes to

regulate emissions of formaldehyde,

phenol, and methanol using

formaldehyde as a surrogate measure for

the proposed emission limits for

manufacturing lines. Use of

formaldehyde as a surrogate allows a

single emission limit rather than

individual emission limits for

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol

(which would require separate

measurements) because when the

formaldehyde emission limit is met,

phenol and methanol emissions will

also be reduced.
15240 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

D. Selection of Proposed Standards for

Existing and New Sources

1. Background

After EPA has identified the specific

source categories or subcategories of

major sources to regulate under section

112, MACT standards must be set for

each category or subcategory. Section

112 establishes a minimum baseline or

‘‘floor’’ for standards. For new sources,

the standards for a source category or

subcategory cannot be less stringent

than the emission control that is

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. [See section

112(d)(3).] The standards for existing

sources can be less stringent than

standards for new sources, but they

cannot be less stringent than the average

emission limitation achieved by the

best-performing 12 percent of existing

sources for categories and subcategories

with 30 or more sources, or the bestperforming five sources for categories or

subcategories with fewer than 30

sources.

After the floor has been determined

for a new or existing source in a source

category or subcategory, the

Administrator must set MACT standards

that are no less stringent than the floor.

Such standards must then be met by all

sources within the category or

subcategory. In establishing the

standards, EPA may distinguish among

classes, types, and sizes of sources

within a category or subcategory. [See

section 112(d)(1).]

The next step in establishing MACT

standards is to investigate regulatory

alternatives. With MACT standards,

only alternatives at least as stringent as

the floor may be selected. Information

about the industry is analyzed to

develop model plants for projecting

national impacts, including HAP

emission reduction levels and cost,

energy, and secondary impacts.

Regulatory alternatives (which may be

different levels of emissions control,

equal to or more stringent than the floor

levels) are then evaluated to select the

regulatory alternative that best reflects

the appropriate MACT level. The

selected alternative may be more

stringent than the MACT floor, but the

control level selected must be

technologically achievable. The

regulatory alternatives and emission

limits selected for new and existing

sources may be different because of

different MACT floors.

The Agency may consider going

beyond the floor to require more

stringent controls. Here, EPA considers

the achievable emission reductions of

HAPs (and possibly other pollutants

that are co-controlled), cost and

economic impacts, energy impacts, and

other nonair environmental impacts.

The objective is to achieve the

maximum degree of emissions reduction

without unreasonable economic or other

impacts. [See section 112(d)(2).]

Subcategorization within a source

category may be considered when there

is enough evidence to demonstrate

clearly that there are significant

differences among the subcategories.

The EPA examined the processes, the

process operations, and other factors to

determine if separate classes of units,

operations, or other criteria have an

effect on air emissions or their

controllability. The EPA considered

developing subcategories of glassmelting furnaces on the basis of the

energy sources used to convert the raw

materials to molten glass and their

emission potential. Glass-melting

furnaces are typically either gas-fired,

electric, or a combination of gas and

electric. After examining PM emissions

data for gas, electric, and combination

gas and electric furnaces, EPA

concluded that there is a large amount

of variability in PM emissions regardless

of energy source and that most furnaces

are already well controlled by either

ESPs or baghouses. Therefore, EPA

decided not to develop subcategories of

glass-melting furnaces.

Wool fiberglass manufacturing lines

can be classified by the type of forming

process (RS and FA) used.

Approximately 90 percent of the wool

fiberglass manufactured by the RS

forming process is building insulation,

whereas the wool fiberglass

manufactured by the FA forming

process is specialty products, such as

automotive or filtration products.

Because of the type of products, the RS

and FA forming process differ

significantly in the way fibers are

formed, production rates, air flow and

energy expended per ton of product,

application of process modifications,

and the amount of binder applied to the

wool fiberglass. As a result of these

differences in manufacturing

methodologies, levels of pollutant

emissions, and application of controls

(such as process modifications), EPA

subcategorized manufacturing lines into

those using the RS forming process (RS

manufacturing lines) and those using

the FA forming process (FA

manufacturing lines). RS manufacturing

lines consist of forming, curing, and

cooling. FA manufacturing lines consist

of forming and curing processes; cooling

is not a distinct separate process on FA

manufacturing lines. FA manufacturing

lines can be further subcategorized by

the type of specialty product made. The

FA subcategories include light-density,

heavy-density, automotive, and pipe

insulation products. Each of these

subcategories is characterized by a

specific range of LOIs and densities,

which gives each subcategory a different

emission potential. Also, the control

measures that can be used to reduce

HAP emissions, for example, process

modifications, are different for the FA

subcategories. For all these reasons, the

proposed standards have different

emission limits for RS manufacturing

lines and FA manufacturing lines and,

within the FA subcategory, different

emission limits for two FA

subcategories.

2. Selection of Floor Technologies

In establishing these proposed

emission standards, the add-on or

process control technology

representative of the MACT floor was

determined for each subcategory. In

general, these determinations were

made on the basis of the performances

of the technologies as reported by

emission test results. The technologies

determined to be the MACT floors are

those determined to be the median of

the technologies that are representative

of the best performing 12 percent of the

sources (for which there are emissions

data) where there are more than 30

sources in the subcategory or the best

performing five sources (for which there

are emissions data) where there are

fewer than 30 sources.

Of the 56 existing glass-melting

furnaces, 12 are controlled by ESPs and

25 by baghouses (more than one furnace

may be controlled by a single control

device). PM emissions data are available

for 18 furnaces. Because the number of

furnaces is greater than 30, the MACT

floor is represented by the average of the

best performing 12 percent of the

existing sources. Based on PM

emissions data for the best performing

12 percent, baghouses and ESPs are

equally effective in controlling PM

emissions from glass-melting furnaces.

Therefore, the MACT floor for existing

glass-melting furnaces is represented by

well-designed and operated baghouses

and ESPs. An ESP representative of the

MACT floor will have a specific

collection area of 32 square meters per

1,000 actual cubic meters per hour (590

ft 2/1,000 acfm); a baghouse

representative of the MACT floor is a

pulse-jet baghouse with polyester bag

material and an air-to-cloth ratio of 0.9

actual cubic meters per minute per

square meter (3 acfm/ft 2 ). Because the

same well-designed and -operated

baghouses and ESPs are considered by

EPA to be the best control technology

for PM emissions, including metal HAP

emissions, MACT for new furnaces
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15241

would be the same as the MACT floor

for existing sources, a baghouse or an

ESP.

HAP emissions control on RS forming

processes is achieved by process

modifications including resin and

binder chemistry, fiberization

technology, binder application, and

forming conditions (docket item II-D–

62). Resins are manufactured by an

outside supplier or in-house using

proprietary technologies to meet the

specifications of the wool fiberglass

manufacturer. Variables, such as the

phenol-to-formaldehyde mole ratio,

resin cook procedures, and catalysts,

control both the free-formaldehyde and

phenol levels as well as the types and

relative percentage of phenol oligomers,

all of which influence the levels of

emissions and acceptability of a resin

for a given process. Resin purchase

specifications are typically written so

that the free-formaldehyde content is

‘‘not to exceed’’ a certain level. In

binder chemistry, the addition of

various additives can reduce

formaldehyde emissions. Urea, for

example, added to the binder solution

reacts with free formaldehyde, which

can form stable, nonreversible urea

formaldehyde compounds. In

fiberization technology, temperature of

the fiber veil is a critical process

variable (a lower temperature may

reduce HAP volatilization) affected by

the fiberizer design and operation as

well as by air and water treatment of the

fiber veil. Binder application efficiency,

the amount of binder that stays on the

fiberglass, is increased by matching

binder droplet size to the fiber diameter.

Factors such as nozzle size geometry,

configuration of the nozzle assembly,

and location affect binder droplet size.

Forming conditions, such as air volume

and velocity affect binder application

efficiency; too much or too little air flow

can increase emissions. Each of these

process modifications has been

implemented on each of the 40 RS

forming processes, although the degree

to which each process modification has

been implemented is different for each

line. Add-on controls such as wet

scrubbers or wet ESPs, primarily for PM

control, were shown to be ineffective for

gaseous HAP removal. Thus, the MACT

floor for forming on existing RS

manufacturing lines is represented by

process modifications. Because the

number of RS forming sources, 40, is

greater than 30, the MACT floor is

represented by the median of the best

performing 12 percent of existing

sources, or five sources (40x0.12=4.8).

Based on HAP emissions data for the

best performing 12 percent of existing

sources, process modifications are the

MACT floor for forming processes on RS

manufacturing lines. Because of

differences in application between

companies and because of the

proprietary nature of process

modifications, a detailed description of

forming process modifications cannot be

presented.

Of the 43 curing ovens on RS

manufacturing lines, 14 are controlled

using incinerators. Based on the median

of the top 12 percent, the thermal

incinerator is the MACT floor for curing

processes on existing RS manufacturing

lines. Thermal incinerators have been

shown to be highly effective in the

control of emissions of organic HAPs

and can achieve destruction efficiencies

in excess of 98 percent with an

adequately high temperature, good

mixing, sufficient oxygen, and adequate

residence time. Low organic

concentration gas streams, such as those

emitted from wool fiberglass curing

processes, can be expected to have low

heating values and require auxiliary

fuel. Heat recovery through the use of a

recuperative incinerator can reduce the

energy requirements. Emission test

measurements demonstrate that a

thermal incinerator is at least 99 percent

effective in the removal of formaldehyde

and phenol from curing ovens. Based on

the median of the best performing 12

percent of existing sources, a thermal

incinerator representative of the MACT

floor has a combustion temperature of

700 °C (1,300 °F) and a gas residence

time of 1 second.

While the MACT floor for cooling is

no control, cooling is included in the

definition of RS manufacturing line, and

therefore covered as part of the

proposed RS manufacturing line

standard. This inclusion prevents the

shifting of emissions from forming and

curing to the cooling section.

The EPA’s analysis of MACT floor

control options for existing RS

manufacturing lines (described above)

showed that the median of the best

performing 12 percent of existing

forming processes control HAP

emissions using process modifications

and the median of the best performing

12 percent of existing curing ovens are

controlled by incinerators. As a result,

the MACT floor for RS manufacturing

lines is forming process modifications

coupled with an incinerator for curing

emissions. These controls were

determined to be the most efficient for

the control of HAPs among the various

controls used in the industry for

existing RS manufacturing lines. Based

on the best controlled source, MACT for

new RS manufacturing lines is more

stringent than the MACT floor for

existing RS manufacturing lines. MACT

for new RS forming processes

incorporates a higher degree of process

modifications than is present on most

existing forming processes but which is

available to all the industry and can be

designed into new forming processes.

Because the MACT floor for existing

curing ovens, incinerators operating at

700 °C (1,300 °F) and a gas residence

time of 1 second, represent the bestcontrolled source, MACT for new curing

ovens is the same as the MACT floor for

existing curing ovens. None of the

cooling processes are controlled for

gaseous HAPs; as a result, MACT for

new cooling processes is no control.

Thus, EPA has determined that the

MACT floor for new RS manufacturing

lines is represented by a high level of

process modifications on RS forming

processes, incinerators on curing ovens,

and no control on cooling processes.

As discussed earlier, none of the

forming processes on FA manufacturing

lines producing light-density or

automotive products are equipped with

HAP emission controls. Thus, the

MACT floor is no control for forming

processes on new and existing FA lines

producing these products. The median

of the best performing five lines (fewer

than 30 sources) producing heavydensity products was determined to be

no control; thus, the MACT floor for

forming on existing FA manufacturing

lines producing heavy-density products

is no control. The best-controlled heavydensity forming process uses process

modifications; therefore, process

modifications are the basis for the

MACT floor for the forming process on

new FA manufacturing lines producing

heavy-density products.

Emissions from the forming process

on all FA manufacturing lines

producing pipe insulation are controlled

by the same level of process

modifications. Therefore, process

modifications are the basis for the

MACT floor for the forming process on

all new and existing FA manufacturing

lines producing pipe insulation.

No control systems have been applied

for the control of HAP emissions from

curing ovens on FA manufacturing

lines. Therefore, the MACT floor for

curing ovens on new and existing FA

manufacturing lines is no control.

Although the MACT floor for curing is

no control, curing is included in the

definition of FA manufacturing line

and, therefore, is covered as part of the

proposed FA manufacturing line

standard. This inclusion prevents the

shifting of emissions from forming to

the curing section.

The EPA’s analysis of MACT floor

control options for existing FA
15242 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

manufacturing lines producing pipe

product showed the best performing five

forming processes (fewer than 30

sources) controlled by the same level of

process modifications and curing ovens

uncontrolled for HAP emissions. As a

result, the MACT floor for existing FA

manufacturing lines producing pipe

products is process modifications for

forming and no control for curing.

Because the same level of process

modifications is used on forming

processes on all FA manufacturing lines

producing pipe products and because

no HAP controls are used on curing

ovens, EPA has determined that the

MACT floor for new FA manufacturing

lines producing pipe products is the

same as the MACT floor for existing

sources.

As described above, the MACT floor

for forming processes and curing ovens

on existing FA manufacturing lines

producing heavy-density products is no

control; therefore, the MACT floor for

existing FA manufacturing lines

producing heavy-density products is no

control. Based on the best-controlled

source, MACT for new FA

manufacturing lines producing heavydensity products is process

modifications on forming. Because no

curing ovens are controlled, the MACT

floor for new curing ovens is no control,

the same as the MACT floor for existing

curing ovens. Thus, EPA has

determined that the MACT floor for new

FA manufacturing lines that produce

heavy-density products is represented

by process modifications on forming

and no control on curing ovens.

The EPA considered requiring

controls beyond the MACT floor for

glass-melting furnaces and RS and FA

manufacturing lines. However, based on

an assessment of the impacts of beyondthe-floor controls, EPA concluded that

the cost effectiveness of an incremental

reduction in emissions would make

additional controls unreasonable

(docket items II–A–12, II–B–17, II–B–

22).

3. Emission Limits

As part of this rulemaking, emissions

data were collected from tests at 10

wool fiberglass plants and from other

test data supplied by NAIMA to

characterize uncontrolled and

controlled emissions from the various

processes and evaluate the effectiveness

of existing control systems. Sites tested

during this rulemaking were selected

based on their use of the control

technology identified as candidates for

MACT floor. Using the test data, EPA

established the MACT floor emission

limits for existing and new sources.

Emissions data were evaluated for 18

furnaces controlled by baghouses and

ESPs (docket item II–I–20). Emissions

ranged widely for both gas and electric

furnaces and for both well-designed and

well-operated baghouses and ESPs.

Controlled PM emissions from all

furnaces ranged from 0.01 to 0.54 kg/Mg

(0.02 to 1.08 lb/ton) of glass pulled.

Emissions of PM from baghousecontrolled furnaces ranged from 0.01 to

0.54 kg/Mg (0.02 to 1.08 lb/ton) of glass

pulled and from 0.01 to 0.25 kg/Mg

(0.02 to 0.5 lb/ton) of glass pulled for

ESP-controlled furnaces. Controlled

electric furnace PM emissions ranged

from 0.01 to 0.35 kg/Mg (0.02 to 0.7 lb/

ton) of glass pulled; controlled gas

furnace emissions ranged from 0.01 to

0.54 kg/Mg (0.02 to 1.08 lb/ton). In

proposing emission limits, EPA took

into consideration the wide variation in

controlled emissions for both gas and

electric furnaces and for well-designed

and operated baghouses and ESPs. The

proposed PM emission limits represent

a level that can be achieved by all

existing furnaces that are controlled by

well-designed and operated baghouses

and ESPs. Because MACT for new and

existing furnaces is the same, EPA

proposed the same PM emission limit,

0.25 kg of PM/Mg (0.5 lb of PM/ton) of

glass pulled, for new furnaces as for

existing furnaces. The proposed PM

emission limit for existing glass-melting

furnaces, 0.25 kg/Mg (0.5 lb/ton) of glass

pulled, is the same as the current NSPS

level for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces

in the wool fiberglass industry (see 40

CFR part 60, subpart CC). Both

baghouses and ESPs are used to control

emissions from gas-fired furnaces. In

proposing the same emission limit for

new and existing furnaces, EPA

recognizes that both baghouses and

ESPs used on existing furnaces are

already highly efficient at controlling

PM emissions and there is no basis for

a more stringent emission limit based on

this control technology.

The limited emission test data for

metal HAPs show their emissions to be

low, often below the detection limits of

the test method. In cooperative efforts

by EPA and NAIMA, tests for metal

HAPs were performed at six glassmelting furnaces (docket item II–B–15).

For a medium capacity controlled

furnace (27,000 Mg/yr [30,000 ton/yr]),

emissions of arsenic would be 0.2 lb/yr,

chromium emissions would range from

1.2 to 18 lb/yr, and lead emissions

would be 0.6 to 2.1 lb/yr. Total metal

HAP emissions from a large (50,000 Mg/

yr [55,000 ton/yr]) controlled model gasfired furnace are an estimated 60 lb/yr.

For RS forming processes, the number

of sources is 40. Because the number of

sources is greater than 30, the MACT

floor is represented by the median of the

best performing 12 percent of existing

sources, or five sources. Emissions of

formaldehyde from forming processes

representative of the best performing

five were measured (docket items II–B–

15, II–B–21, II–D–64). Emissions of

formaldehyde from these five forming

processes were 0.15, 0.33, 0.49, 0.49,

and 0.6 kg/Mg (0.3, 0.65, 0.97, 0.97, and

1.2 lb/ton) of glass pulled. Using these

results, the median emission level is

0.49 kg of formaldehyde per megagram

(0.97 lb of formaldehyde per ton) of

glass pulled. The emission level

selected as representative of new

forming processes, 0.33 kg of

formaldehyde per megagram (0.65 lb of

formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled,

reflects the performance of the best

process modification available to the

industry. The emission level of 0.15 kg/

Mg (0.3 lb/ton) is from a proprietary

forming process not available to the rest

of the industry. Therefore, it was not

considered MACT for new sources.

Emissions test results for RS forming

processes are summarized in Table 4.

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS ON RS MANUFACTURING LINES

[Docket Items II–B–15, II–B–21, II–D–64]

Process and Plant Control

Average Formaldehyde

Emissions

kg/mg lb/ton

Forming Process modificationsa

Plant P ................................ .............................................................................................................................................. 0.15 0.3

Plant S ................................ .............................................................................................................................................. 0.33 0.65

Plant T ................................ .............................................................................................................................................. 0.6 1.2

Plant U ............................... .............................................................................................................................................. 0.49 0.97
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15243

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS ON RS MANUFACTURING LINES—Continued

[Docket Items II–B–15, II–B–21, II–D–64]

Process and Plant Control

Average Formaldehyde

Emissions

kg/mg lb/ton

Plant V ................................ .............................................................................................................................................. 0.49 0.97

Curing

Plant M ............................... Incinerator (1300 °F, 0.5-s residence time)

Inlet .................................................................................................................................. 0.497 0.994

Outlet ............................................................................................................................... 0.00039 0.00078

Plant N ............................... Incinerator (1500 °F, 2.5-s residence time)

Outlet ............................................................................................................................... 0.00146 0.00292

Cooling

Plant O ............................... Uncontrolled ........................................................................................................................ 0.004 0.007

aProcess modifications include resin chemistry, binder chemistry, fiberization technology, binder application, forming conditions.

RS curing processes, controlled by

incinerators, were tested at two plants

using the technology that EPA

determined represented the MACT floor

for RS curing, resulting in one

measurement of 0.0004 kg of

formaldehyde per megagram (0.001 lb of

formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled

and another measurement of 0.0015 kg

of formaldehyde per megagram (0.003 lb

of formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled

(docket item II–B–15). Because results

from just two tests were available, the

higher result (0.0015 kg of formaldehyde

per megagram [0.003 lb of formaldehyde

per ton] of glass pulled) was chosen to

represent MACT floor emissions from

existing and new curing ovens. The only

test result for emissions from cooling

operations was 0.005 kg of

formaldehyde per megagram (0.01 lb of

formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled

(docket item II–B–15); this emission

level was selected to represent the

emissions from new and existing

cooling processes. Emissions data for RS

curing and cooling processes are

summarized in Table 4.

The proposed formaldehyde emission

limit for existing RS manufacturing

lines, 0.6 kg of formaldehyde per

megagram (1.2 lb of formaldehyde per

ton) of glass pulled, is based on the

combined manufacturing line emission

levels from forming, curing, and cooling

with a 20 percent allowance to account

for the use of short-term test data as

compared to long-term continuous

monitoring data. In metric units, the

emission limit for existing RS

manufacturing lines was calculated as

follows: (0.49 + 0.0015 + 0.005) × 1.20

= 0.6 kg of formaldehyde per megagram

of glass pulled. In English units, the

emission limit for existing RS

manufacturing lines was calculated as

follows: (0.97 + 0.003 + 0.01) × 1.20 =

1.2 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass

pulled. The proposed emission limit for

new RS manufacturing lines, 0.4 kg of

formaldehyde per megagram (0.8 lb of

formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled,

was derived using 0.33 kg/Mg (0.65 lb/

ton) for the forming emission level and

the same emission levels for curing and

cooling as mentioned above. In metric

units, the emission limit for new RS

manufacturing lines was calculated as

follows: (0.33 + 0.0015 + 0.005) × 1.20

= 0.4 kg of formaldehyde per megagram

of glass pulled. In English units, the

emission limit for new RS

manufacturing lines was calculated as

follows: (0.65 + 0.003 + 0.01) × 1.20 =

0.8 lb of formaldehyde per ton of glass

pulled.

For existing and new FA

manufacturing lines that produce pipe

insulation, the MACT floor for forming

is the same process modification, which

has been applied to an equal degree to

all forming processes. Because there are

no formaldehyde emission controls on

curing on FA manufacturing lines

producing pipe insulation, the MACT

floor for curing is no control. Emissions

of formaldehyde have been measured

from forming and curing on six FA

manufacturing lines producing pipe

insulation where the same MACT floors

for forming and curing were used (see

Table 5). Results from short-term

formaldehyde emission tests on these

FA manufacturing lines were 1.7, 2.4,

2.4, 2.4, 3.2 and 3.4 kg/Mg (3.4, 4.7, 4.8,

4.9, 6.5, and 6.8 lb/ton) of glass pulled

(docket item II–D–54). Even though the

same control technologies and methods

on manufacturing lines (forming and

curing) producing the same product

were used, the emissions varied widely

from 3.4 to 6.8 lb/ton. Because the test

data for the same control technologies

and methods that represent the MACT

floors show a range of emissions and

because emissions tests used short term

tests (3 hrs) while the MACT standard

will need to be met at all times, EPA has

set the proposed formaldehyde emission

limit for new and existing FA

manufacturing lines producing pipe

insulation at 3.4 kg of formaldehyde per

megagram (6.8 lb of formaldehyde per

ton) of glass pulled. The EPA believes

that this emission rate is the level that

can be consistently achieved by the

control technologies and methods that

are the MACT floor.

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS DATA FOR FA MANUFACTURING LINES

[Docket item II–D–54]

Process and product Control

Formaldehyde

emissions

kg/mg lb/ton

Heavy density ............ Forming—process modifications ....................................................................................................

Curing—no control .........................................................................................................................

2.3

3.9

4.6

7.8
15244 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS DATA FOR FA MANUFACTURING LINES—Continued

[Docket item II–D–54]

Process and product Control

Formaldehyde

emissions

kg/mg lb/ton

Pipe ........................... Forming—process modifications ....................................................................................................

Curing—no control .........................................................................................................................

1.7

2.35

2.4

2.45

3.25

3.4

3.4

4.7

4.8

4.9

6.5

6.8

In the case of new FA manufacturing

lines that produce heavy-density

product, the MACT floor is represented

by process modifications on forming

processes, which have been applied to

the same degree on two forming

processes, and no control on curing. The

emission limit selected for new FA

manufacturing lines producing heavydensity product is based on the results

of emissions testing on forming and

curing processes on two FA

manufacturing lines producing heavydensity products where the same

process modifications have been

applied to forming and both curing

ovens are uncontrolled (see Table 5).

Emissions of formaldehyde from these

two FA manufacturing lines were 2.3

and 3.9 kg of formaldehyde per

megagram (4.6 and 7.8 lb of

formaldehyde per ton) of glass pulled

(docket item II–D–54). Because of the

small number of tests, the use of shortterm test data (rather than long-term

continuous monitoring data), and to

allow for the variability in emission

results from forming processes using the

same floor level process modifications,

the 3.9 kg/Mg (7.8 lb/ton) level was

chosen to represent MACT floor

emissions from new FA manufacturing

lines manufacturing heavy-density

products.

E. Selection of

Monitoring Requirements

Several monitoring options were

identified and evaluated for sources in

wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.

Under the most stringent option, a

continuous opacity monitor (COM)

would be required for monitoring PM

emissions from glass-melting furnaces,

and a continuous emission monitor

(CEM) would be required for

measurements of formaldehyde, phenol,

and methanol. No EPA-approved

continuous monitoring method is

available for measuring PM, which is

used as a surrogate for metal HAP

emissions.

Where continuous monitors do not

exist or are too expensive, monitoring

would rely on parametric monitoring of

one or more parameters associated with

the production process or control

device, coupled with corrective action

for operating problems. Potential

parameters could include incinerator

operating temperature, ESP electrical

readings, and binder formulation

parameters. A bag leak detection system

could be used to monitor PM emissions

from baghouses and ensure proper

operation and maintenance of the

control devices. Visible emissions

observations by Method 9 could be

required on a daily or weekly basis to

ensure proper operation of control

devices on glass-melting furnaces. For

this industry, however, opacity is not

considered a good indicator of

compliance because of the low grain

loadings. Therefore, this option was not

considered further.

A one-time performance test is

necessary to demonstrate compliance

with the applicable emission limit for

glass-melting furnaces and

manufacturing lines. Using the surrogate

approach, the owner or operator would

measure PM emissions from the furnace

control system using EPA Method 5 in

appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and

§ 63.1389 (Test methods and

procedures) and formaldehyde

emissions using EPA Method 316 or

Method 318. Methods 316 and 318 are

also being proposed today. The

sampling and analytical cost for a threerun performance test is estimated at

$8,000 for Method 5 and $9,000 for

Method 316. The owner or operator

could also use EPA Method 318, for

measuring formaldehyde emissions for

compliance purposes as well measuring

other pollutant emissions. The method

is also validated for use as a CEM. The

sampling and analytical cost for three

Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) gasphase extractive runs, including other

tests needed in conjunction with

Method 318, is about $15,000.

During the performance tests for each

glass-melting furnace and each RS and

FA manufacturing line subject to the

standard, the owner or operator would

monitor and record the glass pull rate

and determine the arithmetic mean for

each test run. A determination of

compliance during the performance

tests would be based on the average of

the three individual test runs.

Each owner or operator subject to the

proposed NESHAP would submit a

written operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan as part of their

application for a part 70 permit. The

plan would include procedures for the

proper operation and maintenance of

processes and add-on control devices

used to comply with the proposed

emission limits as well as the corrective

actions to be taken when a process or

control device parameter deviates from

allowable levels established during

performance testing. The plan would

identify the process parameters and

control device parameters that would be

monitored to determine compliance, a

monitoring schedule, and procedures

for keeping records to document

compliance. Additional information

may be required depending on the addon control device or process that is used

to comply with the emission standard.

The owner or operator of each furnace

controlled by an ESP would submit as

part of their operations, maintenance,

and monitoring plan the ESP parameters

(e.g., secondary voltage of each

electrical field) to be monitored, a

monitoring schedule, recordkeeping

procedures to document compliance,

and how the ESP is to be maintained

and operated. The proposed monitoring

provisions specify that corrective

actions be taken according to the

procedures in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan in

the event of a deviation in any 3-hour

average ESP parameter outside the range

established during performance testing.

Failure to initiate corrective actions

within 1 hour of the deviation would be

considered noncompliance. If the ESP
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15245

7Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

8Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

9Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

10Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

parameter values are outside the range

established during the performance test

for more than 5 percent of total

operating time in a 6-month reporting

period, the owner or operator would

implement a QIP consistent with

subpart D of the draft approach to

compliance assurance monitoring.7 If

the ESP parameter values are outside

the range for more than 10 percent of

total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

would be in violation of the standard.

Following the performance test, the

owner or operator of each glass-melting

furnace controlled by a baghouse would

monitor emissions exiting the PM

control system using a bag leak

detection system since opacity is not a

good indicator of performance at the

low, controlled PM levels characteristic

of these sources. The bag leak detection

system must be equipped with an alarm

system that will sound when an

increase in PM emissions is detected.

On a positive pressure baghouse where

more than a single bag leak detection

system probe may be necessary, the

instrumentation and alarm for the bag

leak detection system may be shared

among detectors. Provisions are

included in the rule regarding

installation, calibration, and operation

of the system. The monitoring

provisions specify that when the bag

leak detection system alarm is activated,

the baghouse be inspected for the cause

of the alarm and that corrective action

be initiated according to the procedures

in the operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan. Failure to initiate

corrective actions within 1 hour of the

alarm would be considered

noncompliance. If the alarm is activated

for more than 5 percent of the total

operating time during the 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

must implement a QIP consistent with

subpart D of the draft approach to

compliance assurance monitoring.8

The owner or operator of a glassmelting furnace whose emissions are

not exhausted to an air pollution control

device for PM control would submit as

part of their operations, maintenance,

and monitoring plan a description of

how the furnace is to be operated and

maintained, the furnace parameter(s) to

be monitored for compliance purposes,

a monitoring schedule, and

recordkeeping procedures for

documenting compliance. On cold top

electric furnaces, for example, the air

temperature above the glass melt may be

monitored as an indicator of furnace

performance. Corrective action would

be taken if the range of acceptable

values for the selected operating

parameter(s), such as air temperature

above the glass melt in a cold top

electric furnace, established during the

initial performance test, is exceeded

based on any 3-hour average of the

monitored parameter. A deviation

outside the established range would

trigger an inspection of the glass-melting

furnace to determine the cause of the

deviation and the initiation of corrective

actions according to the procedures in

the facility’s operations, maintenance,

and monitoring plan. Failure to initiate

corrective actions within 1 hour of the

deviation would be considered

noncompliance. If the furnace operating

parameter values are outside the range

established during the performance test

for more than 5 percent of total

operating time in a 6-month reporting

period, the owner or operator would

implement a QIP consistent with

subpart D of the draft approach to

compliance assurance monitoring.9 If

the furnace parameter values are outside

the range for more than 10 percent of

total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

would be in violation of the standard.

The owner or operator would perform

the one-time performance test for each

new and existing RS manufacturing line

that produces building insulation

(defined as having an LOI of less than

8 percent and a density of less than 32

kg/m3 [2 lb/ft3]) while manufacturing

building insulation. Similarly,

performance tests would be performed

for each new FA manufacturing line that

produces heavy-density (defined as

having an LOI of 11 to 25 percent and

a density of 8 to 48 kg/m3 [0.5 to 3 lb/

ft3]) or pipe insulation products

(defined as having an LOI of 8 to 14

percent and a density of 48 to 96 kg/m3

[3 to 6 lb/ft3]) and each existing FA

manufacturing line that produces pipe

insulation products.

During the performance test on RS

and FA manufacturing lines, the owner

or operator would monitor and record

the free-formaldehyde content of each

resin lot, the binder formulation of each

batch used during the tests, and the

product LOI and density for each line

tested. The performance test would be

run using the resin with the highest free

formaldehyde content that is expected

to be used on each manufacturing line

subject to the standard. After the initial

performance test, if an owner or

operator wants to use a resin with a

higher free-formaldehyde content or

change the binder formulation, another

performance test must be conducted to

verify compliance. Following the

performance test, the owner or operator

would maintain records of the freeformaldehyde content of each incoming

resin lot, the formulation of each binder

batch, and daily product LOI and

product density. If resin freeformaldehyde content exceeds the

performance test levels, the owner or

operator would be in violation of the

standard. Under the proposed NESHAP,

the binder formulation must not deviate

from the formulation specifications used

during the performance test.

If the owner or operator of an RS or

an FA manufacturing line plans to use

forming process modifications to

comply with the proposed standard, the

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan must specify the

process parameters (e.g., LOI, binder

solids, and/or binder application rate) to

be monitored and their correlation with

formaldehyde emissions, the monitoring

schedule, and recordkeeping procedures

for documenting compliance, in

addition to procedures for the proper

operation and maintenance of the

process modifications. The owner or

operator would monitor forming process

parameters by adhering to the

procedures detailed in their operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

Should the process parameter(s) deviate

from the range established during the

performance test, the owner or operator

must inspect the process to determine

the cause of the deviation and initiate

corrective action within 1 hour of the

deviation. If the process parameter(s) are

outside the performance test range for

more than 5 percent of total operating

time during a 6-month reporting period,

the owner or operator would implement

a QIP consistent with subpart D of the

draft approach to compliance assurance

monitoring.10 If the process parameter(s)

are outside the range for more than 10

percent of total operating time in a 6-

month reporting period, the owner or

operator would be in violation of the

standard.

If a wet scrubbing control device is

used to control formaldehyde emissions

from an RS or FA manufacturing line

subject to the standard, the owner or

operator must establish during the

performance test the 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.

If the owner or operator plans to operate
15246 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

11Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

the scrubber in such a way that the

pressure drop, liquid flow rate, or

chemical additive or chemical feed rate

exceeds the range of values established

during the performance tests, additional

testing would be necessary to

demonstrate compliance. Following the

initial performance tests, an owner or

operator who uses a wet scrubbing

control device to control formaldehyde

emissions from an RS or FA

manufacturing line would record the

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. The proposed monitoring

provisions also specify that corrective

action be taken if the range of acceptable

values established during the initial

performance test is exceeded. Deviation

by any 3-hour average scrubber

parameter outside the established range

would cause the owner or operator to

inspect the process to determine the

cause of the deviation and to initiate

corrective actions according to the

procedures in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

Failure to initiate corrective actions

within 1 hour of the deviation would be

considered noncompliance. If any

scrubber parameter is outside the

performance test range for more than 5

percent of the total operating time in a

6-month reporting period, the owner or

operator would implement a QIP

consistent with subpart D of the draft

approach to compliance assurance

monitoring.11 If any of the scrubber

parameter values are outside the range

for more than 10 percent of total

operating time in a 6-month reporting

period, the owner or operator would be

in violation of the standard.

If an incinerator is used to comply

with the applicable emission limits for

manufacturing lines, the incinerator

operating temperature would have to be

continuously monitored and recorded

using a device such as a thermocouple

with a strip chart recorder or data

logger. During the performance test, the

owner or operator would continuously

monitor the temperature and record the

average temperature during each 1-hour

test. The average of the three 1-hour test

runs would be used to monitor

compliance. Following the performance

tests, the owner or operator would

maintain the temperature so that any 3-

hour average does not fall below the

temperature established during the

performance test. If the temperature falls

below the average, the owner or

operator would be considered out of

compliance. The operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan for

an incinerator would include

procedures to follow in the event of a

temperature drop. Examples of

procedures that might be included in

the plan for incinerators include: (1)

inspection of burner assemblies and

pilot sensing devices for proper

operation and cleaning; (2) adjusting

primary and secondary chamber

combustion air; (3) inspecting dampers,

fans, blowers, and motors for proper

operation, and (4) shutdown

procedures.

Under the proposed NESHAP, the

owner or operator would be allowed to

change the control device or process

parameter levels established during the

initial performance tests. The owner or

operator would be permitted to expand

the range or increase the level of any

add-on control device or process

parameter level used to monitor

compliance by performing additional

emission testing to demonstrate that at

the new levels, the affected source

complies with the emission limits in

§§ 63.1382, 63.1383, or 63.1384.

The EPA general provisions in 40 CFR

part 63, subpart A, require each owner

or operator to develop and implement a

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan. Under the proposed NESHAP, the

plan would include procedures for

routine and long-term maintenance of

the control devices according to the

manufacturer’s instructions or

recommendations.

The EPA believes that these

monitoring provisions will provide

sufficient information needed to

determine compliance or operating

problems at the source. At the same

time, the provisions are not labor

intensive, do not require expensive,

complex equipment, and are not

burdensome in terms of recordkeeping

needs.

F. Selection of Test Methods

Under the proposed NESHAP, the

owner or operator conducts a one-time

performance (emissions) test to

determine initial compliance with the

emission limits for glass-melting

furnaces and manufacturing lines.

Under the proposed rule, PM serves as

a surrogate for HAP metals and

formaldehyde, a HAP, serves as a

surrogate measure for all organic HAPs.

The owner or operator would measure

PM emissions from the control device

(baghouse or ESP) exhaust outlet for the

furnace or from the furnace exhaust

outlet where no controls are in place

using EPA Method 5 in appendix A to

40 CFR part 60, ‘‘Determination of

Particulate Emissions from Stationary

Sources,’’ and § 63.1388 (Test methods

and procedures) of the proposed rule.

To prevent sulfate formation in the

sampling apparatus, the method

specifies that the probe and filter holder

be maintained at a temperature no

greater than 177±14 °C (350±25 °F). To

determine emissions of formaldehyde

from RS manufacturing lines, the owner

or operator would measure emissions of

formaldehyde at the exhaust outlets of

the forming, curing, and cooling

processes and sum the measurements to

determine manufacturing line

emissions. To measure formaldehyde

emissions from FA manufacturing lines

subject to this standard, emissions from

the forming process and from curing

would be measured and the results

summed to determine manufacturing

line emissions. Formaldehyde emissions

may be measured using EPA Method

316, ‘‘Sampling and Analysis for

Formaldehyde Emissions from

Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool

and Wool Fiberglass Industries,’’ with

formaldehyde analyses by

spectrophotometry using the modified

pararosaniline method. Method 316 is

being proposed concurrently with this

proposed rule. Method 316 is a manual

test method for the measurement of

formaldehyde. The method was

developed by the industry trade group,

NAIMA. The method was validated at a

mineral wool facility, which has been

determined to be a similar source,

according to the procedures in Test

Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix

A. In Method 316, 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 water. The water

containing formaldehyde is then

analyzed using the modified

pararosaniline method. Formaldehyde

in the sample reacts with acidic

pararosaniline and sodium sulfite,

forming a purple chromophore. The

intensity of the purple color, measured

spectrophotometrically, provides a

measure of the formaldehyde

concentration in the sample.

Formaldehyde emissions can also be

measured using EPA Method 318,

‘‘Extractive FTIR Method for the

Measurement of Emissions from the

Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass

Industries.’’ The Fourier Transform

Infrared (FTIR) spectrometry method is

also being proposed today for addition

to appendix A to 40 CFR part 63. The

FTIR spectrometry method uses a

multicomponent measurement system

to quantify a wide variety of pollutants

in one test. Method 318 is an extractive
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15247

FTIR procedure and has been validated

by the EPA according to Method 301

requirements. The Method 318

procedure involves removing a

slipstream of stack gas and filling a

sample cell with the stack gas sample,

which is then analyzed by FTIR

spectrometry.

Methods for determining the product

LOI and the free formaldehyde content

of resins are also contained in the

proposed rule. The owner or operator

also may use other alternative test

methods subject to approval by the

Administrator.

Using the results of each test run and

information generated during the

performance tests (i.e., average glass

pull rate in tons per hour for each test

run), the owner or operator would then

use the equations and procedures in the

rule to convert the emission rate of PM

and formaldehyde into the units of the

standard.

G. Solicitation of Comments

The EPA seeks full public

participation in arriving at its final

decisions and encourages comments on

all aspects of this proposal from all

interested parties. Full supporting data

and detailed analyses should be

submitted with comments to allow EPA

to make maximum use of the comments.

All comments should be directed to the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Docket No. A–95–

24 (see ADDRESSES). Comments on this

notice must be submitted on or before

the date specified in DATES.

Commenters wishing to submit

proprietary information for

consideration should clearly distinguish

such information from other comments

and clearly label it ‘‘Confidential

Business Information.’’ Submissions

containing such proprietary information

should be sent directly to the following

address, and not to the public docket, to

ensure that proprietary information is

not inadvertently placed in the docket:

Attention: Mr. William Neuffer, c/o Ms.

Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA Confidential

Business Information Manager, OAQPS/

MD–13; Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711. Information covered by

such a claim of confidentiality will be

disclosed by the EPA only to the extent

allowed and by the procedures set forth

in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies a

submission when it is received by the

EPA, the submission may be made

available to the public without further

notice to the commenter.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

considered by EPA in the development

of this rulemaking. The docket is a

dynamic file, because material 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 contents of the

docket, except for certain interagency

materials, will serve as the record for

judicial review. [See section

307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.]

B. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to discuss the proposed

standards in accordance with section

307(d)(5) of the Act. If a public hearing

is requested and held, EPA will ask

clarifying questions during the oral

presentation but will not respond to the

presentations or comments. To provide

an opportunity for all who may wish to

speak, oral presentations will be limited

to 15 minutes each. Any member of the

public may file a written statement (see

DATES and ADDRESSES). Written

statements and supporting information

will be considered with equivalent

weight as any oral statement and

supporting information subsequently

presented at a public hearing, if held.

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (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.

This action is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of Executive Order 12866, thus OMB

review of the proposed regulation is not

required. However, an economic impact

analysis of the proposed NESHAP was

prepared and is available in the docket.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order

12875, we have involved State

regulatory experts in the development of

this proposed rule. No tribal

governments are believed to be affected

by this proposed rule. State and local

governments are not directly impacted

by the rule, i.e., they are not required to

purchase control systems to meet the

requirements of the rule. However, they

will be required to implement the rule,

e.g., incorporate the rule into permits

and enforce the rule. They will collect

permit fees that will be used to offset

the resources burden of implementing

the rule. Comments have been solicited

from States and have been carefully

considered in the rule development

process. In addition, all States are

encouraged to comment on this

proposed rule during the public

comment period, and the EPA intends

to fully consider these comments in the

development of the final rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995 (109 Stat.

48), requires that the Agency prepare a

budgetary impact statement before

promulgating a rule that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. Section 203 requires

the Agency to establish a plan for

obtaining input from and informing,

educating, and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely affected by the rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, the Agency must identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. The Agency must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative for State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector that
15248 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

achieves the objectives of the rule,

unless the Agency explains why this

alternative is not selected or unless the

selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

This rule is based partially on

pollution prevention alternatives and

has been applied on a manufacturing

line basis. Therefore, it is the least

costly and burdensome approach for

industry since the purchase of add-on

control devices will be avoided by most

of the industry. The total nationwide

capital cost for the standard is estimated

at $19.5 million; annual nationwide cost

is estimated at $6.3 million/yr. Because

this proposed rule, if promulgated, is

estimated to result in the expenditure by

State and local governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector of less

than $100 million in any one year, the

Agency has not prepared a budgetary

impact statement. Because small

governments will not be affected by this

rule, the Agency is not required to

develop a plan with regard to small

governments. Therefore, the

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates

Act do not apply to this action.

F. 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. This

proposed rule would 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. Companies in the wool

fiberglass manufacturing industry are

part of SIC 3296. Companies in SIC 3296

are classified as small by the U.S. Small

Business Administration if the company

has 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.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to OMB

under the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1795.01), and

a copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington,

DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260–2740.

The proposed information

requirements include the notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements of the NESHAP general

provisions, authorized under section

114 of the Act, which are mandatory for

all owners or operators subject to

national emission standards. All

information submitted to EPA for which

a claim of confidentiality is made is

safeguarded according to Agency

policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The

proposed rule does not require any

notifications or reports beyond those

required by the general provisions.

Proposed 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 range established during the

performance test and a brief explanation

of the cause of the deviation and the

corrective action taken; (3) uncontrolled

furnace operating parameters, such as

air temperature above the glass melt of

cold top electric furnaces, including any

exceedances of the established

parameter values and a brief

explanation of the cause and the

corrective action taken; (4) the freeformaldehyde content of the resin being

used; (5) the formulation of the binder

being used; (6) the LOI and density for

each bonded product manufactured on

an RS or FA manufacturing line subject

to the proposed NESHAP; (7) forming

process modification parameters,

including any period when the

parameter levels are inconsistent with

levels established during the

performance test with a brief

explanation of the cause and corrective

actions taken; (8) pressure drop, liquid

flow rate, and information on chemical

additives to the scrubbing liquid

including any period when the levels

established during the performance tests

are exceeded and a brief explanation of

the cause and the corrective action

taken; and (9) incinerator operating

temperature, including any period when

the temperature falls below the level

established during the performance test,

with a brief explanation of the cause of

the deviation and the corrective action

taken. Each of these information

requirements is needed to determine

compliance with the standard.

The annual public reporting and

recordkeeping burden for this collection

is estimated at 17,800 labor hours per

year at an annual cost of $571,000. This

estimate includes a one-time

performance test and report (with repeat

tests where needed); one-time

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, verifying,

processing, maintaining, disclosing, and

providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to

respond to a collection of information;

search existing 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.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques, to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M Street SW, Washington,

DC 20460, and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Office for

EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Because OMB is

required to make a decision concerning

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after

March 31, 1997, a comment to OMB is

most likely to have its full effect if OMB
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15249

receives it by April 30, 1997. The final

rule will respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

H. Clean Air Act

In accordance with section 117 of the

Act, publication of this proposal was

preceded by consultation with

appropriate advisory committees,

independent experts, and Federal

departments and agencies. This

regulation will be reviewed 8 years from

the date of promulgation. This review

will include an assessment of such

factors as evaluation of the residual

health risks, any overlap with other

programs, the existence of alternative

methods, enforceability, improvements

in emission control technology and

health data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

I. Pollution Prevention Act

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

establishes 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 proposed 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Wool

fiberglass manufacturing.

Dated: February 21, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I,

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart NNN 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 for glassmelting furnaces.

63.1383 Emission standards for rotary spin

manufacturing lines.

63.1384 Emission standard for flame

attenuation manufacturing lines.

63.1385 Compliance dates.

63.1386 Monitoring requirements.

63.1387 Performance test requirements.

63.1388 Test methods and procedures.

63.1389 Notification, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements.

63.1390 Delegation of authority.

63.1391 63.1399 [Reserved].

Table 1 to Subpart NNN—Applicability of

general provisions (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A) to subpart NNN.

Appendix A to Subpart NNN—Method for

the determination of LOI

Appendix B to Subpart NNN—Free

formaldehyde analysis of insulation

resins by hydroxylamine hydrochloride

Appendix C to Subpart NNN—Method for

the determination of product density

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.

(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 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 the owner or operator

of a wool fiberglass manufacturing

facility that the owner or operator

demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the

Administrator, is not a major source as

defined in § 63.2 of the general

provisions.

(d) The provisions of 40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart A—General Provisions 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 the 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]), most frequently

manufactured (as measured by hours of

production times glass pull rate) during

the preceding calendar year.

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,
15250 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 used in the manufacture of

wool fiberglass at a single

manufacturing line in a specified time

period.

HAP means those chemicals and their

compounds that are included on the list

of hazardous air pollutants in 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/ft3).

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 comprising

any combination of a forming section,

where molten glass is fiberized and a

fiberglass mat is formed; a curing

section, where binder resin in the mat

is thermally set; and a cooling section,

where the mat is cooled.

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/m3

(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 a thermal,

acoustical, or other insulation material

composed of glass fibers made from

glass produced or melted at the same

facility where the manufacturing line is

located.

§ 63.1382 Emission standards for glassmelting furnaces.

On or after the date the initial

performance test is completed or

required to be completed under § 63.7,

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.

§ 63.1383 Emission standards for rotary

spin manufacturing lines.

On or after the date the initial

performance test is completed or

required to be completed under § 63.7,

whichever date is earlier, the owner or

operator shall not discharge or cause to

be discharged into the atmosphere in

excess of:

(a) 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

(b) 0.4 kg of formaldehyde per

megagram (0.8 lb of formaldehyde per

ton) of glass pulled for each new rotary

spin manufacturing line.

§ 63.1384 Emission standards for flame

attenuation manufacturing lines.

On or after the date the initial

performance test is completed or

required to be completed under § 63.7,

whichever date is earlier, the owner or

operator shall not discharge or cause to

be discharged into the atmosphere in

excess of:

(a) 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

(b) 3.4 kg of formaldehyde per

megagram (6.8 lb of formaldehyde per

ton) of glass pulled from each existing

or new flame attenuation manufacturing

line that produces pipe product wool

fiberglass.

§ 63.1385 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) (Date 3 years after effective date of

the final rule) 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 may request from the

Administrator, or the applicable

regulatory authority in a State with an

approved permit program, an extension

of the compliance date for the emission

standards for one additional year if

needed to install add-on controls or

process modifications. The owner or

operator shall submit a request for an

extension according to the procedures

in § 63.6(i)(3) of the general provisions.

§ 63.1386 Monitoring requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of each

wool fiberglass manufacturing facility

shall prepare for each glass-melting

furnace, RS manufacturing line, and FA

manufacturing line subject to the

provisions of this subpart, a written

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan. The plan shall be

submitted to the Administrator for

review and approval as part of the

application for a part 70 permit and

shall 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

of §§ 63.1382, 63.1383, and 63.1384;

(2) Process parameters and add-on

control device parameters to be

monitored to determine compliance;

and

(3) Corrective actions to be taken

when process parameters or add-on

control device parameters deviate from

the levels established during initial

performance testing.

(b) 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.

(1) The bag leak detection system

must be capable of detecting PM

emissions at concentrations of 1.0

milligram per actual cubic meter (0.0004

grains per actual cubic foot) and greater.

(2) The bag leak detection system

sensor must provide output of relative

or absolute PM emissions.

(3) The bag leak detection system

must be equipped with an alarm system

that will sound when an increase in PM

emissions over a preset level is detected.

(4) 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15251

1Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

2Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

3Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

4Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

instrumentation and alarm may be

shared among the monitors.

(5) The bag leak detection system

shall be installed, operated, calibrated,

and maintained in a manner consistent

with available guidance from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency or, in

the absence of such guidance, the

manufacturer’s written specifications

and recommendations.

(6) Calibration 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 setpoints and

the alarm delay time. Calibration of the

system shall be done during the initial

performance test.

(7) The owner or operator shall not

adjust the range, averaging period, alarm

setpoints, or alarm delay time after the

initial performance test without written

approval from the Administrator.

(8) Following the performance test, if

the alarm for the bag leak detection

system is triggered, the owner or

operator shall inspect the control device

to determine the cause of the deviation

and initiate within 1 hour of the alarm

the corrective actions specified in the

procedures in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(9) If the alarm is sounded for more

than 5 percent of the total operating

time in a 6-month reporting period, the

owner or operator must implement a

Quality Improvement Plan (QIP)

consistent with subpart D of the draft

approach to compliance assurance

monitoring.1

(c)(1) Where an electrostatic

precipitator (ESP) is used to control PM

emissions from a glass-melting furnace,

the owner or operator shall include in

the ESP operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan the following

information:

(i) ESP operating parameter(s), such as

secondary voltage of each electrical

field, to be monitored and the

procedures to be followed during the

performance test to establish the range

of values that will be used to identify

any operational problems;

(ii) A schedule for monitoring the ESP

operating parameter(s);

(iii) Recordkeeping procedures,

consistent with § 63.1389, to show that

the ESP operating parameter(s) is within

the range established during the

performance test; and

(iv) Procedures for the proper

operation and maintenance of the ESP.

(2) Following the performance test, if

any 3-hour average value for the ESP

monitoring parameter(s) deviates from

the range established during the

performance test, the owner or operator

shall inspect the control device to

determine the cause of the deviation

and initiate within 1 hour of the

deviation the corrective actions

necessary to return the ESP parameter(s)

to the levels established during the

performance test according to the

procedures in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(3) If the monitored ESP parameter is

outside the level established during the

performance test more than 5 percent of

the total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

must implement a QIP consistent with

subpart D of the draft approach to

compliance assurance monitoring.2

(4) If the monitored ESP parameter is

outside the level established during the

performance test more than 10 percent

of the total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

is in violation of the standard.

(d)(1) For a glass-melting furnace,

including a cold top electric furnace,

where no add-on controls are used to

control PM emissions, the owner or

operator shall include in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan the

following information:

(i) The operating parameter(s), such as

the air temperature above the glass melt,

to be monitored and the procedures to

be followed during the performance test

to establish the range of values 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 § 63.1389, to show that

the glass-melting furnace parameter(s) is

within the range established during the

performance test; and

(iv) Procedures for the proper

operation and maintenance of the glassmelting furnace.

(2) Following the performance test, if

any 3-hour average value for the

parameter used to monitor uncontrolled

glass-melting furnaces deviates from the

range established during the

performance test, the owner or operator

shall inspect the glass-melting furnace

to determine the cause of the deviation

and initiate within 1 hour of the

deviation the corrective actions

necessary to return the process

parameter(s) to the levels established

during the performance test according to

the procedures in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(3) If the monitored parameter is

outside the level established during the

performance test more than 5 percent of

the total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

must implement a QIP consistent with

subpart D of the draft approach to

compliance assurance monitoring.3

(4) If the monitored parameter is

outside the level established during the

performance test more than 10 percent

of the total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

is in violation of the standard.

(e)(1) The owners or operators of

existing glass-melting furnaces shall

continuously monitor and record the

glass pull rate except that for glassmelting furnaces that are not equipped

with continuous monitors, the glass pull

rate shall be monitored and recorded

once per day.

(2) On all new glass-melting furnaces,

the owner or operator shall install,

calibrate, and maintain monitors that

continuously record the glass pull rate.

(3) Following the performance test, if

the glass pull rate exceeds the average

glass pull rate established during the

performance test by greater than 20

percent, the owner or operator shall

inspect the glass-melting furnace to

determine the cause of the exceedance

and initiate within 1 hour of the

exceedance the corrective actions

necessary to return the glass pull rate to

the level established during the

performance test according to the

procedures in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan.

(4) If the glass pull rate exceeds by

more than 20 percent the level

established during the performance test

for more than 5 percent of the total

operating time in a 6-month reporting

period, the owner or operator must

implement a QIP consistent with

subpart D of the draft approach to

compliance assurance monitoring.4

(5) If the glass pull rate exceeds by 20

percent the level established during the

performance test for more than 10

percent of the total operating time in a

6-month reporting period, the owner or

operator is in violation of the standard.

(f)(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) Following the performance test, if

any 3-hour average operating
15252 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

5Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

6Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 41991).

temperature of the incinerator falls

below the average established during

the performance test, the owner or

operator is considered out of

compliance.

(g)(1) The owner or operator of each

rotary spin manufacturing line and

flame attenuation manufacturing line

subject to the provisions of this subpart

shall monitor and record the following

information:

(i) The free-formaldehyde content of

each resin lot;

(ii) The formulation of each batch of

binder used; and

(iii) At least once per day, the LOI and

density of each bonded wool fiberglass

product manufactured.

(2) Following the performance test, if

the free-formaldehyde content of the

resin exceeds the levels established

during the performance test or the

binder formulation varies from the

binder formulation specification

established during the performance test,

the owner or operator is in violation of

the standard.

(h)(1) The owner or operator of each

rotary spin manufacturing line and

flame attenuation manufacturing line

subject to the provisions of this subpart

who uses process modifications to

comply with the standards in §§ 63.1383

and 63.1384 shall 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 parameters to be

monitored to demonstrate compliance

with the applicable emission standards

in §§ 63.1383 and 63.1384. 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 parameters; and

(v) Recordkeeping procedures,

consistent with § 63.1389, to show that

the process parameters values

established during the performance test

are not exceeded.

(2) Following the performance test, if

the process parameter levels exceed the

levels established during the

performance test, the owner or operator

shall inspect the process to determine

the cause of the deviation and initiate

within 1 hour of the deviation the

corrective actions necessary to return

the process parameter(s) to the levels

established during the performance test

according to the procedures in the

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan.

(3) If the process parameter is outside

the level established during the

performance test more than 5 percent of

the total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

must implement a QIP consistent with

subpart D of the draft approach to

compliance assurance monitoring.5

(4) If the process parameter is outside

the level established during the

performance test more than 10 percent

of the total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

is in violation of the standard.

(i)(1) The owner or operator of each

rotary spin manufacturing line and

flame attenuation manufacturing line

subject to the provisions of this subpart

who uses a wet scrubbing control device

to comply with the emission standards

in §§ 63.1383 and 63.1384 shall 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. 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 shall also

continuously monitor and record the

feed rate of any chemical(s) added to the

scrubbing liquid.

(2) Following the performance test, if

any 3-hour average of the scrubber

pressure drop, liquid flow rate, or

chemical additive to the scrubber

exceeds the levels established during

the performance tests, the owner or

operator shall inspect the control device

to determine the cause of the

exceedance and initiate within 1 hour of

the exceedance the corrective actions

necessary to return the scrubber

parameters to the levels established

during the performance test according to

the procedures in the scrubber

operations, maintenance, and

monitoring plan.

(3) If a scrubber parameter is outside

the level established during the

performance test more than 5 percent of

the total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

must implement a QIP consistent with

subpart D of the draft approach to

compliance assurance monitoring.6

(4) If a scrubber parameter is outside

the level established during the

performance test more than 10 percent

of the total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period, the owner or operator

is in violation of the standard.

(j) For all control device and process

operating parameters measured during

the initial performance test, the owners

or operators of glass-melting furnaces,

rotary spin manufacturing lines or flame

attenuation manufacturing lines subject

to this subpart may change the ranges

established during the initial

performance test if additional

performance testing is conducted to

verify that, at the new control device or

process parameter levels, they comply

with the emission standards in

§§ 63.1382, 63.1383, and 63.1384.

§ 63.1387 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 standards in

§§ 63.1382, 63.1383, and 63.1384. The

owner or operator shall conduct the

performance test, according to the

procedures in the general provisions (40

CFR part 63, subpart A) and in this

section.

(1) All monitoring systems and

equipment must be installed,

operational, and properly calibrated

prior to the performance test.

(2) The owner or operator shall

monitor and record the glass pull rate

and determine the average of the

recorded measurements for each test

run.

(3) The owner or operator shall

conduct a performance test for each

existing and new glass-melting furnace.

(4) The owner or operator shall

conduct a performance test for each new

and existing rotary spin manufacturing

line producing building insulation.

(5) The owner or operator shall

conduct a performance test for each new

flame attenuation manufacturing line

producing a heavy-density product or a

pipe product and each existing flame

attenuation manufacturing line

producing a pipe product.

(6) 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 operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan

required in § 63.1386, which will be

used to demonstrate compliance after

the initial performance test. If the owner

or operator plans a change in the ESP

parameter levels from the levels

established during the initial

performance test, another performance

test is required.

(7) The owner or operator of each

rotary spin manufacturing line and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15253

flame attenuation manufacturing line

regulated by this subpart shall 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. If the owner or operator of

a rotary spin manufacturing line or a

flame attenuation manufacturing line

subject to this subpart plans to use a

resin with a higher free-formaldehyde

content or a different binder formulation

than that recorded during the initial

performance test, another performance

test is required.

(8) With prior approval from 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 freeformaldehyde content or other process

parameter values would be outside

those established during performance

tests without first conducting

performance tests. An application to

perform an experimental short-term

production run shall include the

following information:

(i) The purpose of the experimental

run;

(ii) The affected line;

(iii) How the established process

parameters will deviate from previously

approved levels;

(iv) The duration of the test run;

(v) The date and time of the test run;

and

(vi) A description of any emission

testing to be performed during the test.

(9) During the performance test, the

owner or operator shall continuously

record the operating temperature of each

incinerator and record the average of

each 1-hour test; the average of the three

1-hour tests shall be used to monitor

compliance.

(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 standards in §§ 63.1383

and 63.1384 shall monitor and record

the process parameter level(s), as

specified in the operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan

required in § 63.1386, which will be

used to demonstrate compliance after

the initial performance test. If the owner

or operator plans a change in the

process parameter levels from the levels

established during the initial

performance test, another performance

test is required.

(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 standards in

§§ 63.1383 and 63.1384 shall

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 to be

used to determine compliance after the

initial performance test.

(b) To determine compliance with the

PM emission standard for glass-melting

furnaces, use the following equation:

E C Q K

P = Eq

× × 1 ( . ) 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 standard for formaldehyde for

rotary spin manufacturing lines and

flame attenuation forming processes,

use the following equation:

E C MW Q K K

K P = Eq

× × × ×

× ×

1 2

3

6 10

( . ) 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).

§ 63.1388 Test methods and procedures.

(a) The owner or operator shall use

the following methods to determine

compliance with the applicable

emission standards:

(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

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 (appendix A of this

part) for the concentration of

formaldehyde. Each run shall consist of

a minimum run time of 1 hour;

(7) Method 318 (appendix A of this

part) for the concentration of

formaldehyde;

(8) Method contained in appendix A

of this subpart for the determination of

product LOI;

(9) Method contained in appendix B

of this subpart for the determination of

the free-formaldehyde content of resin;

(10) Method contained in appendix C

of this subpart for the determination of

product density;

(11) 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.

§ 63.1389 Notification, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements.

(a) Notifications. As required by § 63.9

(b) through (d), 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 the effective date of the

standard;

(3) Notification that a source is subject

to the standard, where the source is new

or has been reconstructed, the initial

startup is after the effective date of the

standard, 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
15254 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 the

effective date of the standard, and for

which an application for approval or

construction or reconstruction is

required (See § 63.9(b)(4) and (5));

(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), 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 the general provisions

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 the general provisions

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 the general

provisions.

(d) Excess emissions report. As

required by § 63.10(e)(3)(v) of the

general provisions, the owner or

operator shall report semiannually if

measured emissions are in excess of the

applicable standard or a monitored

parameter is exceeded. The report shall

contain the information specified in

§ 63.10(c) of the general provisions.

When no exceedances have occurred,

the owner or operator shall submit a

report stating that no excess emissions

occurred during the reporting period.

(e) Recordkeeping. (1) As required by

§ 63.10(b) of the general provisions, 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 the general

provisions, the owner or operator shall

maintain records of the following

information:

(i) 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;

(ii) The ESP monitoring parameters

including any deviation in the ESP

monitoring parameters with a brief

explanation of the cause of the deviation

and the corrective action taken;

(iii) The monitoring parameter for

uncontrolled glass-melting furnaces

including any exceedances and a brief

explanation of the cause of the

exceedance and the corrective action

taken;

(iv) The formulation of each binder

batch 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 lot;

(v) Forming process parameters as

identified in the approved operations,

maintenance, and monitoring plan

where process modifications are used to

comply with the applicable emission

limits, including any period when the

process parameter levels were

inconsistent with the levels established

during the performance test, with a brief

explanation of the cause of the deviation

and the corrective action taken;

(vi) Scrubber operating parameters

where a scrubber is used to comply with

the applicable formaldehyde emission

limits, including any periods of

exceedances with a brief explanation of

the cause of the deviation and the

corrective action taken;

(vii) Incinerator operating

temperature, including any period when

the temperature falls below the average

temperature established during the

performance test, with a brief

explanation of the cause of the deviation

and the corrective action taken; and

(viii) The LOI for each product

manufactured on a rotary spin

manufacturing line or flame attenuation

manufacturing line subject to the

provisions of this subpart.

§ 63.1390 Delegation of authority.

(a) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a State under

section 112(d) of the Act, the authorities

contained in paragraph (b) of this

section shall be retained by the

Administrator and not transferred to a

State.

(b) Authorities which will not be

delegated to States: § 63.1388(a)(11).

§§ 63.1391–63.1399 [Reserved]

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNN—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS

[40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A to Subpart NNN]

General provisions citation Requirement

Applies to

subpart

NNN

Comment

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15255

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNN—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued

[40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A to Subpart NNN]

General provisions citation Requirement

Applies to

subpart

NNN

Comment

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 .......... § 63.1385 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 .......... § 63.1386(a) 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

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 .......... § 63.1387 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
15256 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNN—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued

[40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A to Subpart NNN]

General provisions citation Requirement

Applies to

subpart

NNN

Comment

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

Appendix A to Subpart NNN—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 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—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.

1. The following table shows example

levels:

Expected percent free

formaldehyde

Sample

size,

grams

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

5 .................................................... 12.0
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15257

Expected percent free

formaldehyde

Sample

size,

grams

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 percent 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 

normality = × ×

hydroxide

3.003

grams of sample

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.

Appendix C to Subpart NNN—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 multiple 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 plants 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/ft 2).

3.4 Measure sample thickness.

3.5 Calculate the product density:

Density (lb/ft 3) = area weight (lb/ft 2)/

thickness (ft)

3. 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 x 10 ¥10 lbs/cu ft (11.3

ppbv) or as high as 1.8 x 10 3 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 in subpart A of this part.

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. 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. Figure 1 is as

follows:

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
15258 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15259

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

diameter (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

increases (vice versa for 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, 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, or glass wash

bottles may be used for sample recovery.

6.2.3 Graduate 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 m’’

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 a. 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 the working

standards from this 100 μg/ml standard

solution and using the Oxford pipets:
15260 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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

b. 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 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 Teflon

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 Teflon 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, Teflon 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 a. 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 leakfree 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.)

b. 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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15261

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 6.5.1.1 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 at 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
15262 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15263

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
15264 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 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

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15265

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 Teflon caps

may be 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-lock 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. 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

recovery 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 applicable

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 m3min

(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 m3min (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)

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 or the correct barometric

pressure value reported by a nearby National

Weather Service Station (same altitude above

sea level).

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.

a. 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
15266 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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

used as a ‘‘0’’ formaldehyde standard.

b. 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.

c. 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

d. 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 form 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 d × × × 0 001 . mg/ gμ

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

d ×

( ) . − × × 0 001 mg/ gμ

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

std

×[

( )

total formaldehyde, mg]

Vm

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.

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

Methods 1–5

Method 318—Extractive FTIR Method for the

Measurement of Emissions from the Mineral

Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries

1. Scope and Application

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.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15267

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.

1.3 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.

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.
15268 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Absorbance band intensities are related to

sample concentrations by Beer’s Law.

A a bc v i i = ∑ ( ) 1

where:

Av = absorbance of the ithcomponent at the

given frequency, Υ

a = absorption coefficient of the ith

component at the frequency, Υ

b = path length of the cell.

c = concentration of the ith compound in the

sample at frequency Υ

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.)

2.2.3 Analyte spiking is used for quality

assurance. Analyte spiking shall be carried

out before the first run (a test consists of

three runs) and after the third run. Unless

otherwise specified in the applicable

regulation, a run shall consist of 8 discrete

readings taken by the FTIR over an hour.

Therefore, a test shall consist of two analyte

spike interferograms (assuming a mixture of

compounds was introduced simultaneously

for the analyte spike; if each compound was

introduced individually, two analyte spike

interferograms would be recorded for each

target compound), 24 stack sample

interferograms, and their corresponding

background readings.

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 suspect

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

Figures 1 and 2. Either the evacuated or

purged sampling technique may be used with

this sampling train. Alternatives may be

used, provided that the data quality

objectives are met as determined in the postanalysis evaluation (see Section 13.0).

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., Balston TM) for fine particulate

removal, placed immediately after the heated

probe.

6.3 Sampling Line/Heating System.

Heated (sufficient to prevent sample

condensation) stainless steel, Teflon, 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 Calibration/Analyte Spike Assembly.

A three way valve assembly (or equivalent)

to introduce methanol spikes into the

sampling system at the outlet of the probe

before the out-of-stack particulate filter and

just before the FTIR analytical system. See

Figure 1.

6.6 Mass Flow Meters. To accurately

measure analyte spiking flow rate, calibrated

from 0 to 2 L/min (±2 percent).

6.7 Gas Regulators. Appropriate for

individual gas cylinders.

6.8 Teflon Tubing. Diameter (e.g., 3⁄8 in.)

and length suitable to connect cylinder

regulators.

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

KNFTM), 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.

6.10 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.

6.11 Rotameter. A calibrated 0 to 20 L/

min range rotameter.

6.12 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.

6.13 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.

6.14 Absolute Pressure Gauge. Heatable

and capable of measuring pressure from 0 to

1000 mmHg to within ±2.5 mmHg (e.g.,

Baratron TM).

6.15 Temperature Gauge. Capable of

measuring the cell temperature to within

±2°C.

7.0 Reagents and Standards.

7.1 Methanol/Sulfur Hexafluoride. Obtain

a gas cylinder mixture of 100 ppm methanol

and 2 ppm SF6 in N2. This gas mixture need

not be certified.

7.2 Ethylene (Calibration Transfer

Standard). Obtain NIST traceable (or

Protocol) cylinder gas.

7.3 Nitrogen. Ultra high purity (UHP)

grade.

7.4 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.

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, and

Storage.

Sampling should be performed in the

following sequence: Collect background,

collect CTS spectrum, QA spiking and directto-cell measurement of spike gas, collect

samples, post-test QA spiking and direct-tocell measurement, 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. Inteferants: 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 absorbencies 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15269

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

P

P

L

SS

= 50 2 tSS

∆

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).

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.

8.6 Samples.

8.6.1 Evacuated Samples. Evacuate the

absorbance cell to ≤5 mmHg absolute

pressure before. 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.

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

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.

Use analyte spiking to verify the validity of

the sampling system for the analytes of

interest. QA spiking shall be performed

before the first run begins and again after the

third run is completed. A direct-to-cell

measurement of the spike gas should also be

performed before and after sampling.

9.1 Spike Materials. Use Protocol or NIST

traceable analyte gas standard, whenever

possible. A vapor generation device may be

used to prepare analyte spike from the neat

or solid sample of formaldehyde and phenol

(use this option only when certified cylinder

gas standards cannot be obtained).

9.2 Spiking Procedure.

9.2.1 Introduce the spike/tracer gas at a

constant (≤±2 percent) flow rate ≤10 percent

of the total sample flow.

(Note: Use the rotameter at the end of the

sampling train to estimate the required spike/

tracer gas flow rate.) Use a mass flow

controller to control and monitor the flow

rate of the spike/tracer gas.

9.2.2 Determine the response time (RT)

by continuously monitoring effluent until

spike is equilibrated within the sampling/

analytical system. Wait for a period of twice

RT, then obtain at least two consecutive

spectra of the spiked gas. Duplicate analyses

of methanol and SF6 shall be within ±5

percent of their mean value.

9.2.3 Calculate the dilution ratio using

the tracer gas as follows:

DF

SF

SF

dir

spk

= 6

6

3 [ ]

[ ]

( )

where:

DF = Dilution factor of the spike gas; this

value shall be ≥10.

SF6[dir] = SF6 concentration measured directly

in undiluted spike gas.

SF6[spk] = Diluted SF6 concentration

measured in a spiked sample.

9.3 Bias. Determine the bias (defined by

EPA Method 301, Section 6.3.1) as follows:

Calculate the expected analyte

concentration in the spiked samples, CS:

CS

A

DF

i dir = ( ) 4

where:

Ai dir = Analyte concentration measured

directly in undiluted spike gas.

DF = From equation 3.

B S M

DF

CS m m = − − 



 



 1 − 1

( ) 5

where:

B = Bias at spike level.

Sm = Mean analyte concentration in the

spiked samples.

Mm = Mean analyte concentration in the

unspiked samples.

CS = Expected analyte concentration in the

spiked samples.

DF = Dilution factor from Equation 3.

9.4 Correction Factor.

9.4.1 Calculate the correction factor, CF,

using the following equation:

CF B

CS

=

+

1

1

( ) 6

9.4.2 If the CF is outside the range of 0.70

to 1.30, the data collected during the

compliance test are unacceptable. For

correction factors within the range, multiply

all analytical results by the CF for that

compound to obtain the final values.

10. 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
15270 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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

=

− 















( ) 7

11. 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 =































 ( ) 8

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. 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. Method Performance.

Refer to the FTIR Protocol. This method is

self-validating provided that the results meet

the performance specification of the QA

spike in Section 9.0.

15. Pollution Prevention. [Reserved]

16. Waste Management.

Laboratory standards prepared from the

formaldehyde and phenol are handled

according to the instructions in the materials

safety data sheets (MSDS).

17. 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. 97–7214 Filed 3–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P