[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15228-15270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7214]



[[Page 15227]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 63



_______________________________________________________________________



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 
Categories; Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing: Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 15228]]



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 Sec. 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

[[Page 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 glass-melting 
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 best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources for categories and 
subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the best-performing 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 
technology-based 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.

[[Page 15230]]

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, pre-existing 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 phenol-
formaldehyde 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.

[[Page 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 (NO<INF>X) and sulfur oxides (SO<INF>X) 
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]                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Emission limit              
           Process           -------------------------------------------
                                    Existing                 New        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnace.....................  0.25 kg of PM per Mg  0.25 kg of PM per Mg
                               of glass pulled.      of glass pulled.   
RS Manufacturing Line.......  0.6 kg of             0.40 kg of          
                               formaldehyde per Mg   formaldehyde per Mg
                               of glass pulled.      of glass pulled.   
                                 Pipe Insulation       Pipe Insulation  
FA Manufacturing Line.......  3.4 kg of             3.4 kg of           
                               formaldehyde per Mg   formaldehyde per Mg
                               of glass pulled.      of glass pulled.   
                                  Heavy Density         Heavy Density   
                              None................  3.9 kg of           
                                                     formaldehyde per Mg
                                                     of glass pulled.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 15232]]


  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]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Emission limit              
           Process           -------------------------------------------
                                    Existing                 New        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnace.....................  0.50 lb of PM per     0.50 lb of PM per   
                               ton of glass pulled.  ton of glass       
                                                     pulled.            
RS Manufacturing Line.......  1.2 lb of             0.80 lb of          
                               formaldehyde per      formaldehyde per   
                               ton of glass pulled.  ton of glass       
                                                     pulled.            
                                 Pipe Insulation       Pipe Insulation  
FA Manufacturing Line.......  6.8 lb of             6.8 lb of           
                               formaldehyde per      formaldehyde per   
                               ton of glass pulled.  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 
glass-melting furnaces using EPA Method 5 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 
and Sec. 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/cm\3\), or 2 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft\3\). 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/cm\3\ [0.5 to 3 lb/ft\3\]) 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/cm\3\ [3 to 6 lb/ft\3\]).
    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

[[Page 15233]]

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 short-term 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.<SUP>1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 15234]]

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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. <SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. <SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. <SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 glass-melting 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 (<greek-m>m) in diameter (PM-
10) (docket item II-B-20). Impacts on new furnaces will vary. New gas-
fired 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/

[[Page 15236]]

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 glass-melting 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]                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Baseline      Emission  
                    Source                                   Pollutant                  emissions     reduction 
                                                                                         (Mg/yr)      (Mg/yr)<SUP>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    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a Emission reduction in the fifth year of the standard. Includes emission reductions from new sources.          


                                    Table 3(b).--Nationwide Annual Emissions                                    
                                                 [English units]                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Baseline      Emission  
                    Source                                   Pollutant                  emissions     reduction 
                                                                                        (ton/yr)      (ton/yr)<SUP>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    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a Emission 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 gas-fired 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 heavy-density 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

[[Page 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 
site-specific 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/ft\2\), 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

[[Page 15238]]

to the standard, there would be a one-time 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 glass-melting 
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  deg.C to 17,00 
deg.C (2,700  deg.F to 3,100  deg.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  deg.C (250 
deg.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

[[Page 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, high-temperature 
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  deg.C to 320  deg.C (350  deg.F to 600 
 deg.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 one-third 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  deg.C [250  deg.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 light-density, 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 beyond-the-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.

[[Page 15240]]

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 best-controlled 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 best-performing 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 glass-melting 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

[[Page 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 
deg.C (1,300  deg.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  deg.C (1,300  deg.F) and a gas residence time of 1 
second, represent the best-controlled 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 heavy-density 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 heavy-density 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

[[Page 15242]]

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 heavy-density 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 beyond-the-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 baghouse-controlled 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 glass-melting 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 gas-fired 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]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Average Formaldehyde 
                                                                                                 Emissions      
                 Process and Plant                                 Control               -----------------------
                                                                                             kg/mg      lb/ton  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Forming                              Process modifications<SUP>a                               
Plant P...........................................  ....................................     0.15        0.3    
Plant S...........................................  ....................................     0.33        0.65   
Plant T...........................................  ....................................     0.6         1.2    
Plant U...........................................  ....................................     0.49        0.97   

[[Page 15243]]

                                                                                                                
Plant V...........................................  ....................................     0.49        0.97   
                                                                                                                
                      Curing                                                                                    
                                                                                                                
Plant M...........................................  Incinerator (1300  deg.F, 0.5-s                             
                                                     residence time)                                            
                                                      Inlet.............................     0.497       0.994  
                                                      Outlet............................     0.00039     0.00078
Plant N...........................................  Incinerator (1500  deg.F, 2.5-s                             
                                                     residence time)                                            
                                                      Outlet............................     0.00146     0.00292
                                                                                                                
                      Cooling                                                                                   
                                                                                                                
Plant O...........................................  Uncontrolled........................     0.004       0.007  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a Process 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)  x  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)  x  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)  x  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) 
 x  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]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Formaldehyde    
                                                         emissions      
    Process and product             Control       ----------------------
                                                      kg/mg      lb/ton 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy density..............  Forming--process            2.3         4.6
                              modifications.             3.9         7.8
                             Curing--no control..                       

[[Page 15244]]

                                                                        
Pipe.......................  Forming--process            1.7         3.4
                              modifications.             2.35        4.7
                             Curing--no control..        2.4         4.8
                                                         2.45        4.9
                                                         3.25        6.5
                                                         3.4         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 heavy-density product 
is based on the results of emissions testing on forming and curing 
processes on two FA manufacturing lines producing heavy-density 
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 short-term 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 Sec. 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 three-run 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) gas-phase 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 
add-on 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

[[Page 15245]]

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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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/m\3\ [2 lb/ft\3\]) 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/m\3\ 
[0.5 to 3 lb/ft\3\]) or pipe insulation products (defined as having an 
LOI of 8 to 14 percent and a density of 48 to 96 kg/m\3\ [3 to 6 lb/
ft\3\]) 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 free-formaldehyde 
content of each incoming resin lot, the formulation of each binder 
batch, and daily product LOI and product density. 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.
    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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 15246]]

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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Secs. 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 Sec. 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<plus-minus>14 
 deg.C (350<plus-minus>25  deg.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

[[Page 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

[[Page 15248]]

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 
free-formaldehyde 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

[[Page 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 (NO<INF>X)and sulfur oxides (SO<INF>X) 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 glass-melting 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


Sec. 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 glass-melting 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 63.1381  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec. 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/m\3\) (2 pounds per cubic foot 
[lb/ft\3\]), 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 high-velocity 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,

[[Page 15250]]

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/m\3\ 
(0.5 to 3 lb/ft\3\).
    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/m\3\ (3 to 6 lb/ft\3\).
    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 high-velocity 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.


Sec. 63.1382  Emission standards for glass-melting furnaces.

    On or after the date the initial performance test is completed or 
required to be completed under Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 glass-melting furnace, rotary spin manufacturing line, or 
flame attenuation manufacturing line; or
    (2) Upon startup for a new glass-melting 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 
Sec. 63.6(i)(3) of the general provisions.


Sec. 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 Secs. 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 glass-
melting 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

[[Page 15251]]

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.<SUP>1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 Sec. 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.<SUP>2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 
glass-melting furnace;
    (iii) Recordkeeping procedures, consistent with Sec. 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 
glass-melting 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.<SUP>3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 glass-melting 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.<SUP>4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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

[[Page 15252]]

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 Secs. 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 Secs. 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 Sec. 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.<SUP>5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 Secs. 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 
<plus-minus>250 pascals (<plus-minus>1 inch water gauge) over its 
operating range, and the flow rate monitor is to be certified by its 
manufacturer to be accurate within <plus-minus> 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.<SUP>6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Proposed rule published in the August 13, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 41991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 Secs. 63.1382, 63.1383, and 63.1384.


Sec. 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 Secs. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 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 free-formaldehyde 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 Secs. 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 Sec. 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 Secs. 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.000

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);
K<INF>1 = 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.001

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);
K<INF>1 = Conversion factor, 1 kg/1,000 g (1 lb/453.6 g);
K<INF>2 = Conversion factor, 1,000 L/m\3\ (28.3 L/ft\3\);
K<INF>3 = Conversion factor, 24.45 L/g-mol; and
P = Average glass pull rate, Mg/h (tons/h).


Sec. 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 O<INF>2 and 
CO<INF>2 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 <plus-minus>14  deg.C (350 
<plus-minus>25  deg.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.


Sec. 63.1389  Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    (a) Notifications. As required by Sec. 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

[[Page 15254]]

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 long-term maintenance.
    (2) The owner or operator shall also keep records of each event as 
required by Sec. 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 
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv) of the general provisions.
    (d) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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: 
Sec. 63.1388(a)(11).


Secs. 63.1391-63.1399  [Reserved]

                           Table 1 to Subpart NNN--Applicability of General Provisions                          
                                   [40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A to Subpart NNN]                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Applies to subpart                            
    General provisions citation              Requirement                 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       Yes                                            
                                      Determination.                                                            

[[Page 15255]]

                                                                                                                
63.1(c)(1)-(c)(2)..................  Applicability After         Yes                                            
                                      Standard Established.                                                     
63.1(c)(3).........................  ..........................  No.................  [Reserved].               
63.1(c)(4)-(c)(5)..................  ..........................  Yes                                            
63.1(d)............................  ..........................  No.................  [Reserved].               
63.1(e)............................  Applicability of Permit     Yes                                            
                                      Program.                                                                  
63.2...............................  Definitions...............  Yes................  Additional definitions in 
                                                                                       Sec.  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/               Yes                                            
                                      Reconstruction.                                                           
63.5(b)(1).........................  Existing, New,              Yes                                            
                                      Reconstructed.                                                            
63.5(b)(2).........................  ..........................  No.................  [Reserved].               
63.5(b)(3)-(b)(6)..................  ..........................  Yes                                            
63.5(c)............................  ..........................  No.................  [Reserved].               
63.5(d)............................  Approval of Construction/   Yes                                            
                                      Reconstruction.                                                           
63.5(e)............................  ..........................  Yes                                            
63.5(f)............................  ..........................  Yes                                            
63.6(a)............................  Compliance with Standards   Yes                                            
                                      and Maintenance                                                           
                                      Requirements.                                                             
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         Yes................  Sec.  63.1385 specifies   
                                      Existing Sources.                                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................  Sec.  63.1386(a) specifies
                                                                                       operations/ maintenance  
                                                                                       plan                     
63.6(e)(3).........................  Startup, Shutdown           Yes                                            
                                      Malfunction Plan.                                                         
63.6(f)(1)-(f)(3)..................  Compliance with Nonopacity  Yes                                            
                                      Emission Standards.                                                       
63.6(g)(1)-(g)(3)..................  Alternative Nonopacity      Yes                                            
                                      Standard.                                                                 
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         Yes................  Sec.  63.1387 has specific
                                      Requirements.                                    requirements.            
63.7(b)............................  Notification..............  Yes                                            
63.7(c)............................  Quality Assurance Program/  Yes                                            
                                      Test Plan.                                                                
63.7(d)............................  Performance Testing         Yes                                            
                                      Facilities.                                                               
63.7(e)(1)-(e)(4)..................  Conduct of Performance      Yes                                            
                                      Tests.                                                                    
63.7(f)............................  Alternative Test Method...  Yes                                            
63.7(g)............................  Data Analysis.............  Yes                                            
63.7(h)............................  Waiver of Performance       Yes                                            
                                      Tests.                                                                    
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  Yes                                            
                                      CMS.                                                                      
63.8(f)............................  Alternative Monitoring      Yes                                            
                                      Method.                                                                   
63.8(g)............................  Reduction of Monitoring     Yes                                            
                                      Data.                                                                     
63.9(a)............................  Notification Requirements.  Yes                                            
63.9(b)............................  Initial Notifications.....  Yes                                            
63.9(c)............................  Request for Compliance      Yes                                            
                                      Extension.                                                                
63.9(d)............................  New Source Notification     Yes                                            
                                      for Special Compliance                                                    
                                      Requirements.                                                             
63.9(e)............................  Notification of             Yes                                            
                                      Performance Test.                                                         
63.9(f)............................  Notification of VE/Opacity  No.................  Opacity/VE tests not      
                                      Test.                                            required.                
63.9(g)............................  Additional CMS              Yes                                            
                                      Notifications.                                                            
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)..................  Notification of Compliance  Yes                                            
                                      Status.                                                                   
63.9(h)(4).........................  ..........................  No.................  [Reserved].               
63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)..................  ..........................  Yes                                            

[[Page 15256]]

                                                                                                                
63.9(i)............................  Adjustment of Deadlines...  Yes                                            
63.9(j)............................  Change in Previous          Yes                                            
                                      Information.                                                              
63.10(a)...........................  Recordkeeping/Reporting...  Yes                                            
63.10(b)...........................  General Requirements......  Yes                                            
63.10(c)(1)........................  Additional CMS              Yes                                            
                                      Recordkeeping.                                                            
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           Yes                                            
                                      Requirements.                                                             
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,          Yes                                            
                                      Malfunction Reports.                                                      
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/    Yes                                            
                                      Reporting.                                                                
63.11(a)...........................  Control Device              Yes                                            
                                      Requirements.                                                             
63.11(b)...........................  Flares....................  No.................  Flares not applicable.    
63.12..............................  State Authority and         Yes                                            
                                      Delegations.                                                              
63.13..............................  State/Regional Addresses..  Yes                                            
63.14..............................  Incorporation by Reference  No.................                            
63.15..............................  Availability of             Yes                                            
                                      Information.                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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  deg.C (1,000 
deg.F) and controllable to <plus-minus>10  deg.C (50  deg.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  deg.C (1,000  deg.F), 
<plus-minus>10  deg.C (50  deg.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 <r-arrow> 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 <gr-thn-eq> 2 percent. Grams resin = 60/
expected percent FF.
    1. The following table shows example levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Sample 
             Expected percent free  formaldehyde                 size,  
                                                                 grams  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................................................       30.0
5............................................................       12.0

[[Page 15257]]

                                                                        
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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Sample 
              Expected percent free formaldehyde                 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.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.017
    
    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 <SUP>-10 
lbs/cu ft (11.3 ppbv) or as high as 1.8 x 10 <SUP>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

[[Page 15258]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.002



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 15259]]

    6.1.1  Probe Nozzle: Quartz, glass, or stainless steel with 
sharp, tapered (30 deg. 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 deg.C <plus-minus> 14 deg.C (248 deg.F <plus-minus> 
25 deg.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 deg.C (2 deg.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 deg.C (5.4 deg.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 <plus-minus> 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 <greek-m>l; 500 
<greek-m>l; 1000 <greek-m>l); 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 deg. 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 deg.C 
(350 deg.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 <greek-m>g/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 
high-purity 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 <greek-m>g/
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 <greek-m>g/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 <greek-m>g/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 <greek-m>g/ml formaldehyde. 
Prepare the working standards from this 100 <greek-m>g/ml standard 
solution and using the Oxford pipets:

[[Page 15260]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Volumetric
                                                 <greek-m>L     flask   
                                                   or 100       volume  
        Working standard, <greek-m>/mL          <greek-m>g/   (dilute to
                                                     mL       mark with 
                                                  solution      water)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.250.........................................          250          100
0.500.........................................          500          100
1.00..........................................         1000          100
2.00..........................................         2000          100
3.00..........................................         1500           50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. The 100 <greek-m>g/ml stock solution is stable for 4 weeks if 
kept refrigerated between analyses. The working standards (0.25--
3.00 <greek-m>g/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 pre-weighed 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 deg.C 
(500 deg.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 heat-resistant 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 leak-free 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 m\3\/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 fine-adjust 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

[[Page 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 m\3\/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 leak-check 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 m\3\/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 deg.C 
<plus-minus> 14 deg.C (248 deg. <plus-minus> 25 deg.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

[[Page 15262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.003



[[Page 15263]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.004



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 15264]]

    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<plus-minus>0.02 and the stack gas 
equivalent density (dry molecular weight) is equal to 
29<plus-minus>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 deg.C 
(68 deg.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 deg.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.

[[Page 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 <greek-m>g/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 
leak-check procedure will apply: make a ten-minute calibration run 
at 0.00057 m\3\min (0.02 cfm). At the end of the run, take the 
difference of the measured wet-test and dry-gas meter volumes and 
divide the difference by 10 to get the leak rate. The leak rate 
should not exceed 0.00057 m\3\min (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 <plus-minus> 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 
<plus-minus> 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 <greek-m>g/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

[[Page 15266]]

samples. In addition, a sample of the high-purity 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 
<greek-m>l pipet, pipet 250 <greek-m>l 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 well-mixed. Peel back a corner of the Parafilm so 
the next reagent can be added. Using the 250 <greek-m>l pipet, pipet 
250 <greek-m>l 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 <greek-m>g/
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=
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.005

Where:
C<INF>d=measured conc. formaldehyde, ``<greek-m>g/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=
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.006

Where:
C<INF>d=measured conc. formaldehyde, <greek-m>g/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/m<SUP>3) in stack gas. 
Determine the formaldehyde concentration (mg/m<SUP>3) in the stack 
gas using the following equation:

Formaldehyde concentration (mg/m<SUP>3)=
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.007

Where:
K=35.31 cu ft/m\3\ for V<INF>m(std) in English units, or
K=1.00 m\3\/m\3\ for V<INF>m(std) in metric units;
V<INF>m(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 V<INF>m(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 
<plus-minus> 5 percent, expressed as <plus-minus> 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<SUP>-1 or 25 to 2.5 <greek-m>m). 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.

[[Page 15267]]



                                      Table 1.--Example Analytical Regions                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Analytical                                                     
                  Compound                      Region (cm<SUP>-1)                Potential interferants             
                                                   FL<INF>m-FU<INF>m                                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde................................  2840.93-2679.83   Water, Methane.                                 
Phenol......................................  1231.32-1131.47   Water, Ammonia, Methane.                        
Methanol....................................  1041.56-1019.95   Water, Ammonia.                                 
COS<SUP>a........................................  2028.4-2091.9     Water, CO<INF>2, CO.                                 
CO<SUP>a.........................................  2092.1-2191.8     Water, CO<INF>2, COS.                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>a Suggested analytical regions assume about 15 percent moisture and CO<INF>2, 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 CO<INF>2 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 (DL<INF>i) and the desired analytical uncertainty (AU<INF>i) 
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 
MAU<INF>im (minimum analyte uncertainty of the i<SUP>th analyte in 
the m<SUP>th analytical region). The MAU is the minimum analyte 
concentration for which the analytical uncertainty limit (AU<INF>i) 
can be maintained: If the measured analyte concentration is less 
than MAU<INF>i, 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 concentration<SUP>a (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                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>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 
rotational-vibrational 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.

[[Page 15268]]

Absorbance band intensities are related to sample concentrations by 
Beer's Law.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.008

where:
A<INF>v = absorbance of the i<SUP>thcomponent at the given 
frequency, <greek-U>
a = absorption coefficient of the i<SUP>th  component at the 
frequency, <greek-U>
b = path length of the cell.
c = concentration of the i<SUP>th  compound in the sample at 
frequency <greek-U>

    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 post-analysis 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 <SUP>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 (<plus-minus>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., KNF<SUP>TM), 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 by-pass 
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 <plus-minus>2.5 mmHg (e.g., 
Baratron <SUP>TM).
    6.15  Temperature Gauge. Capable of measuring the cell 
temperature to within <plus-minus>2 deg.C.
    7.0  Reagents and Standards.
    7.1  Methanol/Sulfur Hexafluoride. Obtain a gas cylinder mixture 
of 100 ppm methanol and 2 ppm SF<INF>6 in N<INF>2. 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 SF<INF>6 
and ethylene. Suitable concentrations are 0.0112 to 0.112 (ppm-
meter)/K for SF<INF>6 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 direct-to-cell 
measurement of spike gas, collect samples, post-test QA spiking and 
direct-to-cell 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 <SUP>-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: AU<INF>i, CMAX<INF>i, DL<INF>i, OFU<INF>i, 
and t<INF>AN for each.
    b. Inteferants: See Table 1.
    c. Sampling system: L<INF>S', P<INF>min, P<INF>S', T<INF>S', 
t<INF>SS, V<INF>SS; fractional error, MIL.
    d. Analytical regions: 1 through N<INF>m, FL<INF>m, FC<INF>m, 
and FU<INF>m, plus interferants, FFU<INF>m, FFL<INF>m, 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. Leak-check from the probe tip 
to pump outlet as

[[Page 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 <ls-thn-eq>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 P<INF>min. Close the valve to the pump, and 
determine the change in pressure <greek-D>P<INF>v 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 
<greek-D>P<INF>p after 2 minutes.
    8.3.3  Measure the barometric pressure, P<INF>b in mmHg.
    8.3.4  Determine the percent leak volume %V<INF>L for the signal 
integration time t<INF>SS and for <greek-D>P<INF>max, i.e., the 
larger of <greek-D>P<INF>v or <greek-D>P<INF>p, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.009

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 V<INF>ss are unacceptable.

    8.4  Background Spectrum. Evacuate the gas cell to <ls-thn-eq>5 
mmHg, and fill with dry nitrogen gas to ambient pressure. Verify 
that no significant amounts of absorbing species (for example water 
vapor and CO<INF>2) 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 <ls-thn-eq>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 
<ls-thn-eq>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, t<INF>ss, 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-to-noise 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 <plus-minus>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 
(<ls-thn-eq><plus-minus>2 percent) flow rate <ls-thn-eq>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 SF<INF>6 shall be within <plus-minus>5 percent of 
their mean value.
    9.2.3  Calculate the dilution ratio using the tracer gas as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.010

where:
DF = Dilution factor of the spike gas; this value shall be 
<gr-thn-eq>10.
SF<INF>6[dir] = SF<INF>6 concentration measured directly in 
undiluted spike gas.
SF<INF>6[spk] = Diluted SF<INF>6 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.011

where:
A<INF>i dir = Analyte concentration measured directly in undiluted 
spike gas.
DF = From equation 3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.012

where:
B = Bias at spike level.
S<INF>m = Mean analyte concentration in the spiked samples.
M<INF>m = 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.013

    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

[[Page 15270]]

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 <ls-thn-eq>5 mmHg. 
Measure the initial absolute temperature (T<INF>i) and absolute 
pressure (P<INF>i). Connect a wet test meter (or a calibrated dry 
gas meter), and slowly draw room air into the cell. Measure the 
meter volume (V<INF>m), meter absolute temperature (T<INF>m), and 
meter absolute pressure (P<INF>m), and the cell final absolute 
temperature (T<INF>f) and absolute pressure (P<INF>f). Calculate the 
FTIR cell volume V<INF>SS, including that of the connecting tubing, 
as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.014

    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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR97.015

where:
C<INF>corr = The pathlength corrected concentration.
C<INF>calc = The initial calculated concentration (output of the 
Multicomp program designed for the compound).
L<INF>r = The pathlength associated with the reference spectra.
L<INF>s = The pathlength associated with the sample spectra.
T<INF>s = The absolute temperature (K) of the sample gas.
T<INF>r = 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