Final Report

of the

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

on EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule

Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Amendments

to the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

for Mineral Wool Production (Mineral Wool RTR)

October 2011
2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 

2. Background 

2.1 Regulatory History 

2.2 Description and Scope of Existing Rule 

2.3 Related Federal Rules 

3. Overview of Revisions under Consideration 

4. Applicable Small Entity Definitions 

5. Small Entities That May Be Subject to the Proposed Regulation 

6. Summary of Small Entity Outreach 

7. List of Small Entity Representatives 

8. Summary of SER Comments and EPA Responses to SER Comments

8.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected

8.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance

8.3 Related Federal Rules

8.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives

8.4.1 Curing Ovens

8.4.2 Collection

8.4.3 Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) Emissions from Cupolas

8.4.4. Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrochloric Acid Emissions from Cupolas

8.4.5 Start-up, Shutdown, Malfunction

8.5 EPA Responses to SER Comments

8.5.1 Curing Ovens
3

8.5.2 Collection

8.5.3 Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) Emissions from Cupolas

8.5.4 Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrochloric Acid Emissions from Cupolas

8.5.5 Start-up, Shutdown, Malfunction

9. Panel Findings and Discussions

9.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected

9.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance

9.3 Related Federal Rules

9.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives

Appendix A: Materials Shared with Small Entity Representatives 

Appendix B: Written Comments Submitted by Small Entity Representatives 
4

1. INTRODUCTION

This report is presented by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel or Panel) 

convened for the proposed rulemaking on the Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Amendments 

to the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Mineral Wool 

Production (Mineral Wool RTR) that is currently being developed by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA or Agency). Under section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), a 

Panel is required to be convened prior to publication of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) that an agency may be required to prepare under the RFA. In addition to EPA’s Small 

Business Advocacy (SBA) Chairperson, the Panel consists of the Director of the project lead at 

the Sector Strategies and Programs Division of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the 

Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration.

This report includes the following:

• Background information on the proposed rule being developed;

• Information on the types of small entities that would be subject to the proposed rule;

• A description of efforts made to obtain the advice and recommendations of 

representatives of those small entities; and

• A summary of the comments that have been received to date from those 

representatives.

Section 609(b) of the RFA directs the Panel to report on the comments of small entity 

representatives and make findings on issues related to certain elements of an IRFA under 

section 603 of the RFA. Those elements of an IRFA are: 

• A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to 

which the proposed rule will apply; 

• A description of projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance 

requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities 

which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary 

for preparation of the report or record;

• An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; 

• A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the 

stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small entities. This analysis shall discuss any significant 

alternatives such as:
5

o the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 

timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

o the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting 

requirements under the rule for such small entities;

o the use of performance rather than design standards; and

o an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 

entities.

Once completed, the Panel Report is provided to the agency issuing the proposed rule and is 

included in the rulemaking record. The agency is to consider the Panel’s findings when 

completing the draft of the proposed rule. In light of the Panel Report, and where appropriate, 

the agency is also to consider whether changes are needed to the IRFA for the proposed rule or 

the decision on whether an IRFA is required. 

The Panel’s findings and discussion will be based on the information available at the time the 

final Panel Report is drafted. EPA will continue to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed 

rule, and additional information may be developed or obtained during the remainder of the 

rule development process. 

Any options identified by the Panel for reducing the rule’s regulatory impact on small entities 

may require further analysis and/or data collection to ensure that the options are practicable, 

enforceable, environmentally sound, and consistent with the Clean Air Act and its amendments. 

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Regulatory History of the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Mineral Wool Production 

Section 112 requires EPA to set maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for 

source categories listed for regulation of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The Risk and 

Technology Review (RTR) is a combined effort to evaluate both risk and technology as required 

by the Clean Air Act (CAA) after the application of the MACT standards. Section 112(f) of the 

CAA requires EPA to complete a Report to Congress that includes a discussion of methods the 

EPA would use to evaluate the risks remaining (‘residual’ risk) after the application of MACT 

standards. EPA published the Residual Risk Report to Congress in March 1999 (EPA-453/R-99-

001). Section 112(f)(2) directs EPA to conduct risk assessments on each source category subject 

to MACT standards, and to determine if additional standards are needed to reduce residual 

risks. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise the MACT standards, as 

necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes and control technologies. 

The methodology for conducting these reviews is described in: Risk and Technology Review 

(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with 

Case Studies – MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing (EPA-
6

452/R-09-006). The Science Advisory Board (SAB) RTR Methods Review Panel held a meeting 

on July 28-29, 2009 to review this document, and a final report of their review is available at 

the SAB website. 

Background on Regulated Community: 

The Mineral Wool production source category includes those facilities that manufacture rock 

and slag wool (mineral wool). Mineral wool is a fibrous, glassy substance made from natural 

rock, blast furnace slag, or other similar materials and consists of silicate fibers typically 4 to 7 

micrometers in diameter. Products made from mineral wool are used for thermal or acoustical 

insulation, sound control and absorbency, and fire protection.

The Mineral Wool MACT applies to owners or operators of any existing, new, or reconstructed 

mineral wool production facility that is located at a plant site that is a major source of HAP 

emissions (emit or have the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year of any one HAP, or 25 

tons per year of any combination of HAP). Subpart DDD established the following emission 

limits from mineral wool sources:

Table 1. Mineral Wool Production Processes and Emission Limits.

Cupola Existing Sources 0.10 lb PM per ton of melt 

New Sources 0.10 lb PM per ton of melt 

0.10 lb CO per ton of melt, or 

Reduce uncontrolled CO emissions ≥ 99% 

Curing

Oven 

Existing and New 

Sources 

0.06 lb formaldehyde per ton of melt, or

Reduce uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions ≥ 80% 

Six companies produce mineral wool; five of these are small businesses. All the known mineral 

wool production plants are major sources of HAP. Thus, they are all subject to the Mineral 

Wool MACT. 

The MACT rule for this source category was promulgated on June 1, 1999. Therefore, the 

statutory deadlines for promulgating both the residual risk rule and the technology review for 

the mineral wool source category was June 1, 2007. These deadlines run concurrently for each 

MACT standard, and EPA is conducting the risk and technology reviews (RTR) together in one 

rulemaking. 
7

As indicated in Table 1, only particulate matter (PM), as a surrogate for HAP metals at existing 

and new cupolas; carbon monoxide (CO), as a surrogate for carbonyl sulfide (COS) at new 

cupolas; and formaldehyde, as a surrogate for phenol and methanol from curing ovens are 

regulated under the MACT standard. Other pollutants of interest for the mineral wool industry 

(and which are not currently regulated) include PM2.5 , hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen 

chloride (HCl), COS, phenol and methanol.1

 The MACT standard does not have emission limits 

for COS, HCl, or HF from existing cupolas; limits for phenol or methanol from curing; or 

emission limits for any pollutants from collection, a process unregulated under the MACT 

standard.

Court-Ordered Deadline and Litigation Background: 

In 2007, the D.C. Circuit (court) found that EPA erred in determining the floors for processes in 

the Brick MACT standard, and consequently vacated the rule.2 In response to this vacature, the 

Sierra Club filed a rulemaking petition to compel EPA to take action to address alleged similar 

deficiencies in 26 separate MACT standards (referred to as ‘Brick MACT’ issues). As a result, 

EPA is reviewing the Mineral Wool MACT to address the following Brick MACT issues:

• Improper methodology used to calculate the MACT floor for formaldehyde from curing 

ovens;

• Use of unproven surrogates (CO for COS and formaldehyde for phenol and methanol);

• Processes that are unregulated and yet emit HAP; and

• Unregulated pollutants from MACT-regulated processes.

In separate litigation, the court vacated portions of two provisions in EPA’s CAA section 112 

regulations that govern emissions of HAPs during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM).3

 Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR §§ 63.6(f)(1) 

and 63.6(h)(1) that are part of regulations commonly referred to as the General Provisions (GP) 

rule. When incorporated into section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these 

two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise applicable 

MACT standards during periods of SSM. Because the Mineral Wool MACT relied on the GP for 

startup and shutdown provisions (40 CFR 63.§ 1194), EPA plans to also review, and revise as 

necessary, the SSM provisions for the Mineral Wool source category in the proposed rule. 

Finally, on January 14, 2009, Sierra Club filed an action to compel EPA to perform its obligations 

under sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) for 28 source categories, which includes the Mineral Wool 

source category.4 EPA negotiated a consent decree and, as a result, is under a court-ordered 

deadline to propose rulemaking for the Mineral Wool source category by October 31, 2011.

 1 The HAP metals emitted from mineral wool cupolas include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 

cobalt, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, and selenium.

2 Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. March 13, 2007) 3 Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct 1735 (2010) 4 Sierra Club v. Jackson (N.D. Cal. January 14, 2009), No. 09-152
8

The upcoming proposed rule is a reproposal of the Mineral Wool RTR, which EPA proposed in 

2008.5

 However, that proposal was based upon one source test data point from the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI). EPA learned after proposal that the one plant for which EPA had test 

data closed down during the development of the proposed rule, and EPA did not receive 

additional data during the comment period on which to support a no-risk conclusion. 

Moreover, the Brick MACT issues, the petition, and the General Provisions vacature were not 

addressed by the 2008 proposal. Therefore, EPA decided to collect new data from operating 

facilities on which to assess risk, and repropose the Mineral Wool RTR along with the other 

MACT amendments identified by recent litigation. 

EPA is making all these revisions (i.e., risk and technology review, Brick MACT issues, and 

startup / shutdown provisions) at one time to both conserve resources and to avoid making one 

change to the MACT followed closely by a second change that would likely impose additional 

controls. Such an approach would be costlier to both industry and taxpayers than if all 

amendments are done together in one rulemaking.

2.2 Description and Scope of Existing Rule

To conduct the RTR for Mineral Wool Production, EPA will review the test data submitted by 

the mineral wool companies and evaluate the risk that remains (‘residual risk’) to determine 

whether the existing MACT standard is sufficiently protective of human health and the 

environment. EPA will also conduct a technology review that will be based on new or 

developing control technologies, work practices, or pollution prevention alternatives (including 

formulation changes) that result in lower HAP emissions from regulated processes. The risk 

review may not consider cost impacts. For uncontrolled pollutants and sources, MACT floors 

must be established independent of cost, but the technology review under an existing MACT 

standard can take costs and other impacts into consideration. 

In lieu of establishing MACT floors for uncontrolled pollutants and sources, EPA has limited 

discretion under section 112(d)(4) (Health-Based Emission Limits) and section 112(h). 

However, EPA cannot use 112(d)(4) for those HAP for which the risk data are inadequate to 

establish a scientifically defensible chronic health threshold, and there is inadequate health 

data to establish a chronic health threshold for COS. Further, the development of health-based 

emission limits which provide public health protection with an ample margin of safety requires 

accurate and comprehensive emissions data for the sources being regulated as well as 

appropriate consideration of potential simultaneous exposures from other nearby sources of 

the same HAPs or HAPs with similar health effects, neither of which typically have robust data 

available.

In addition, EPA cannot use 112(d)(4) for carcinogens like formaldehyde. In order for EPA to 

exercise its discretion to establish a health-based emission standard for a particular HAP using 

CAA section 112(d)(4) authority, EPA must first establish that a scientifically-accepted health 

threshold has been established for that HAP. The characterization of this health threshold is 

 5 73 FR 60432 (October 10, 2008)
9

that exposures at or below this threshold (which is a concentration of the HAP in air) are 

considered to be without appreciable risk of causing adverse health effects. As a general 

matter, for those HAPs which are considered to be known, probable, or possible carcinogens, 

there is no scientifically-accepted threshold below which exposures are considered to carry no 

appreciable risk. As a result, carcinogenic HAPs are generally not considered to be eligible for 

use with the section 112(d)(4) provision. The exception to this would be carcinogenic HAPs that

are known to act carcinogenic only above a specific exposure concentration threshold -- there 

are very few of these, and EPA does not currently consider formaldehyde to be one.

2.3 Related Federal Rules

The primary federal rule that is related to the proposed RTR rule under consideration is the 

NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production, also known as the Mineral Wool MACT. Some facilities 

may currently be subject to SO2 reductions under the revised SO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS standards are Federal rules that are implemented by States in 

the State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Some emission limits under consideration in the Mineral 

Wool RTR have implications for SO2 impacts which could be then subject to the SIP plans for 

SO2 NAAQS implementation. 

3. OVERVIEW OF REVISIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION

At the Panel outreach meeting on June 16, 2011, the SERs were presented with information 

regarding the panel process and potential emission limits based on emissions test data and 

information available to EPA at the time of that meeting (see Appendix A).

Prior to the outreach meeting, EPA provided to the Panel and SERs draft and predecisional 

emission limits for various pollutants from mineral wool production processes, and EPA did not 

at that time have information available on some potential regulatory flexibility alternatives,

such as subcategorization of collection processes. Since then, development of the standard has 

moved forward, and EPA is considering a broader range of possible revisions to the MACT. 

As discussed previously, EPA is reviewing the Mineral Wool NESHAP for risk remaining (residual 

risk) after compliance with the standard in 2002; technology developments since promulgation 

of the rule in 1999; and requirements of the rule, including those that may be incomplete or 

deficient as to HAPs such as regulated processes, inappropriate surrogacy relationships, and 

startup and shutdown requirements. The following sections present an overview of revisions 

under consideration in the Mineral Wool Production RTR.

3.1 Risk Assessment Results

Table 2 summarizes the emissions for the Mineral Wool Production source category. Based on 

these data, the HAP emitted in largest quantities in total from these facilities are carbonyl 

sulfide, formaldehyde, phenol, hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen fluoride; emissions of these 5 
10

pollutants account for 99.8 percent of the total HAP emissions by mass from the data set. 

Carbonyl sulfide, hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen fluoride were reported as an emission for all 

of the facilities. Formaldehyde and phenol are also emitted in large quantities, but from fewer 

facilities; no more than three facilities report emissions of any one of these HAP. Formaldehyde 

and phenol are emitted only from bonded mineral wool fiber manufacturing, which includes 

emissions from the application of the binder, curing, and cooling. Raw material feed rates in 

mineral wool processes are essentially constant with minimal fluctuation (approximately ± 10 

percent). Consequently, emissions also have minimal fluctuation6. In refining the acute risk 

assessment, a short-term emissions multiplier of 3 was used to estimate the maximum hazard 

from acute exposures. Emissions of persistent bioaccumulative (PB ) HAP reported in the data 

set for the mineral wool manufacturing source category include lead, cadmium, and mercury 

compounds. 

Table 2. Summary of Emissions from the Mineral Wool Production Category and Availability of 

Dose-Response Values

HAP

Emissions 

(tpy)

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

HAP (7 

facilities in 

data set) 

Prioritized Inhalation Dose-Response Value 

Identified by OAQPSa

PBHAP? Unit Risk 

Estimate 

for Cancer?

Reference 

Concentration 

for 

Noncancer?

Health 

Benchmark 

Values for 

Acute 

Noncancer?

Carbonyl Sulfide 224 7 Y

Phenol 177 3 Y Y

Hydrochloric acid 23 7 Y Y

Formaldehyde 20 3 Y Y Y

Hydrogen Fluoride 17 7

Selenium 0.28 7 Y

Methanol 0.16 3 Y Y

Manganese 0.14 7 Y

Chromium III 0.04 7

Lead 0.03 7 Y Y

Arsenic 0.03 7 Y Y Y

Nickel 0.024 7 Y Y

Antimony 0.002 7

Cadmium 0.002 7 Y Y Y

Cobalt 0.0013 7 Y

Elemental Gaseous 

Mercury 0.0005 6 Y Y Y

 6 Angus E. Crane, Vice President and General Counsel, North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, to 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket. Comments on the Risk and Technology 

Review, Phase II, Group 2; Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. June 29, 2007.
11

HAP

Emissions 

(tpy)

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

HAP (7 

facilities in 

data set) 

Prioritized Inhalation Dose-Response Value 

Identified by OAQPSa

PBHAP? Unit Risk 

Estimate 

for Cancer?

Reference 

Concentration 

for 

Noncancer?

Health 

Benchmark 

Values for 

Acute 

Noncancer?

Chromium (VI) 0.0003 7 Y Y

Berylium 0.0002 7 Y Y Y

Gaseous Divalent 

Mercury 0.0001 6 Y

Particulate Divalent 

Mercury 0.0001 6 Y

a Specific dose-response values for each chemical are identified on EPA’s Technology Transfer Network website for 

air toxics at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html. 

3.2 Risk Characterization

This section presents the results of the risk assessment for the Mineral Wool Production source 

category. The basic chronic inhalation risk estimates presented here are the maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk, the maximum chronic hazard index, and the cancer incidence. 

This section also presents results from EPA’s acute inhalation impact screening in the form of 

maximum hazard quotients, as well as the results of EPA’s preliminary screen for potential noninhalation risks from PB HAP. Also presented are the HAP “drivers,” which are the HAPs that 

collectively contribute 90 percent of the maximum cancer risk or maximum hazard index at the 

highest exposure location.

Tables 3 and 4 summarize the chronic and acute inhalation risk results for this source category. 

The results for the Mineral Wool Production source category indicate that maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risks could be as high as 4 in a million. The major contributor to this risk is 

formaldehyde. Approximately 1,650 people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1 in a 

million as a result of the emissions from 1 facility. The maximum chronic non-cancer Targetorgan-specific hazard index (TOSHI) value for the source category could be up to 0.04 with 

emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for 

chronic noncancer impacts. 

Worst-case screening acute hazard quotients (HQs) were calculated for every HAP shown in 

Table 2 that has an acute benchmark, and the highest acute HQ (REL of 8 for formaldehyde) is 

shown in Table 3. A refined emissions multiplier of 3 was used to estimate the peak hourly 

emission rates from the average rates. Table 4 provides more information on the acute risk 

estimates for formaldehyde, the only HAP that had a worst-case screening acute HQ greater 

than 1 for any benchmark. 

Chronic noncancer target organ specific hazard indices (HIs) were calculated for every HAP 

shown in Table 2 that has a chronic benchmark, and the highest target organ specific HI (0.04 
12

for formaldehyde) is shown in Table 3. There were no HIs greater than 1 for this source 

category. 

EPA conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential human health risks associated with 

emissions of PB HAP. Reported emissions of PB HAP were compared to de minimis emission 

thresholds established by EPA for the purposes of the RTR risk assessments.7 The PB HAPs 

emitted by facilities in this category are lead, cadmium, and mercury. All lead, cadmium, and 

mercury emissions were below the de minimis threshold levels, indicating no potential for 

significant multi-pathway risks from these facilities.

Table 3. Summary of Source Category Level Inhalation Risks for Mineral Wool Production

Result HAP “Drivers”

Facilities in Source Category

Number of Facilities Estimated to be in Source Category 7 n/a

Number of Facilities Identified in the NEI and Modeled in Preliminary 

Risk Assessment 7 n/a

Cancer Risks

Maximum Individual Lifetime Cancer Risk (in 1 million) 4 formaldehyde

Number of Facilities with Maximum Individual Lifetime Cancer Risk:

Greater than or equal to 100 in 1 million 0 n/a

Greater than or equal to 10 in 1 million 0 n/a

Greater than or equal to 1 in 1 million 1 formaldehyde

Chronic Noncancer Risks

Maximum Hazard Index 0.04 formaldehyde

Number of Facilities with Maximum Respiratory Hazard Index:

Greater than 1 0 n/a

Acute Noncancer Screening Results

Maximum Acute Hazard Quotient [using scaling factor of 3]

8

0.4

formaldehyde 

(REL)

formaldehyde 

(AEGL-1, ERPG1))

Number of Facilities With Potential for Acute Effects 1 formaldehyde

 7 ICF International. TRIM-Based Multipathway Screening Scenario. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. October 2008.
13

Result HAP “Drivers”

Refined Acute Noncancer Results

Maximum Acute Hazard Quotient [using scaling factor of 3]

8

0.4

formaldehyde 

(REL)

formaldehyde 

(AEGL-1, ERPG1))

Population Exposure

Number of People Living Within 50 Kilometers of Facilities Modeled 3,700,000 n/a

Number of People Exposed to Cancer Risk:

Greater than or equal to 100 in 1 million 0 n/a

Greater than or equal to 10 in 1 million 0 n/a

Greater than or equal to 1 in 1 million 1,650 n/a

Number of People Exposed to Noncancer Respiratory Hazard Index:

Greater than 1 0 n/a

Estimated Cancer Incidence (excess cancer cases per year) 0.0004 n/a

Contribution of HAP to Cancer Incidence:

 Formaldehyde

 Arsenic compounds

64%

33%

n/a
14

Table 4. Summary of Refined Acute Results for Mineral Wool Production Facilities

Screening Results

MAXIMUM ACUTE HAZARD 

QUOTIENTS

ACUTE DOSE-RESPONSE VALUES

Based 

on REL

Based 

on 

AEGL1/

ERPG-1

Based 

on 

AEGL-2/

ERPG-2

REL

(mg/m3)

AEGL-1 

(1-hr) 

(mg/m3)

ERPG-1 

(mg/m3)

AEGL-2

(1-hr)

(mg/m3)

ERPG2 

(mg/m3)

HAP Max. 1-hr. 

Air Conc. 

(mg/m3)

Formaldehyde0.47 8 0.4 0.027 0.055 1.1 1.1 17 17

Notes on the process used to refine the acute results presented in Table 4:

1) The screening was performed for all emitted HAP with available acute dose-response values. Only those 

pollutants whose screening HQs were greater than 1 for at least one acute threshold value are shown in 

the table.

2) HAP with available acute dose-response values that are not in the table do not carry any potential for 

posing acute health risks, based on an analysis of currently available emissions data.

Notes on Acute Dose-Response Values:

REL – California EPA reference exposure level for no adverse effects. Most, but not all, RELs are for 1-hour 

exposures.

AEGL – Acute exposure guideline levels represent emergency exposure (1-hour) limits for the general public.

AEGL-1 is the exposure level above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience effects that are notable discomfort, but which are transient and reversible 

upon cessation of exposure.

AEGL-2 is the exposure level above which it is predicted that the general population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects of an 

impaired ability to escape.

EPRG – Emergency Removal Program guidelines represent emergency exposure (1-hour) limits for the general 

public.

ERPG-1 is the maximum level below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up 

to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild, transient adverse health effects.

ERPG-2 is the maximum exposure below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed 

for up to 1 hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or 

symptoms which could impair an individual’s ability to take protective action.

3.3 Potential Amendments Based On Review of the NESHAP Requirements

Startup and Shutdown Requirements:

EPA plans to address startup and shutdown requirements for mineral wool production in the 

rule due to the vacature of these requirements from the General Provisions. The voluntary ICR, 
15

which included questions related to startup and shutdown, indicates that all companies operate 

the air pollution control devices during the entire production campaign, including periods of 

startup and shutdown. Therefore, the Agency plans to require compliance with the rule at all 

times.

Risk Review:

The Agency conducted the risk review using the emissions test results in the voluntary ICR 

conducted by mineral wool producers. Because the risk assessment is a conservative estimate 

of risk, and because the results of the risk assessment indicate risks are within acceptable 

levels, the Agency does not plan to lower emission limits of the Mineral Wool MACT based 

upon the risk assessment results.

Technology Review:

The technology review indicates that in the time since promulgation of the MACT in 1999, new 

processes and technologies are in place on cupolas in the mineral wool production industry. 

Regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) have been installed at more than half the industry’s 

cupolas to reclaim energy and recycle that energy in the form of combustion air back into the 

cupola. This practice reduces the cupola’s consumption of coke. Because coke is the single 

most expensive ingredient in mineral wool production, the use of RTO’s provide a long-term 

cost and energy saving option for the mineral wool industry. However, the formation of SO2

from the combustion of COS in the RTO is a health and environmental disincentive for their use. 

Oxygen injection is used at one plant to reduce COS emissions from the cupola. In this 

technology, oxygen is injected into the cupola ports during the melting operation. The injected 

oxygen drives the chemical reaction of COS to CO2 and SO2 so that COS emissions are greatly 

reduced from the cupola stack. 

The formation and emissions of SO2 from the cupola makes it hard to consider either oxygen 

injection or thermal oxidation as improvements in control technology. To the contrary, these 

technologies contribute to adverse health effects as a result of increases in ambient levels of 

SO2. 

The use of low-sulfur slag, reduced amount of slag, or no slag is a potential improvement used 

by at least one mineral wool producer. Because both coke and slag contribute to the levels of 

sulfur charged to the cupola, any reduction in the sulfur content of raw materials will result in a 

proportionate reduction in the emissions of the sulfur compounds COS and SO2. 

Review of the Mineral Wool MACT Standard:

EPA is considering amendments to the Mineral Wool MACT to address any HAP that are 

emitted by mineral wool producers but are not regulated under the MACT, any processes that 

emit HAP but are not regulated under the MACT and any surrogacy relationships that the 

Agency failed to prove were valid in all instances and using any control technology. Because 
16

there are fewer than 30 cupolas, MACT standards for this industry would be based on the 

average of the best 5 performing cupolas for which the Administrator has information. EPA 

has the discretion to use the most appropriate averaging method (i.e., mean, median or mode) 

in calculating the emission limit identified by the MACT level of control so long as there is a 

rational basis and EPA provides an explanation of such basis. Emission limits for the 3 facilities 

operating a bonded line are under consideration, as described in a separate section below.

These amendments could include emission limits for COS, HF and HCl from existing and new 

cupolas, emission limits for phenol and methanol from existing and new curing ovens, and new 

emission limits for formaldehyde, phenol and methanol from collection (a process that was not 

regulated under the MACT and yet is a source of HAP emissions). EPA is also considering 

lowering the emission limits for formaldehyde from existing and new curing ovens to the levels 

achieved in practice at mineral wool production facilities operating a bonded line. All new 

emission limits for regulated sources would be set at the MACT floor level, would account for 

variability and would be based upon emissions testing conducted by mineral wool producers in 

response to the voluntary ICR. 

EPA also considers MACT emission limits achieved by ‘beyond the MACT floor’ controls, and 

considers the cost of these controls, the toxicity of the pollutants reduced by these controls and 

other factors in ‘beyond the MACT floor’ determinations. The EPA did not identify any beyond 

the MACT floor controls for this industry during the technology review of the standard, and 

‘beyond the MACT floor’ control technologies are not under consideration at this time.

Emission limits for formaldehyde, phenol and methanol are being considered for collection 

processes on a bonded line. 

Subcategorization of Collections – Vertical, Horizontal and Drum:

EPA collected information from the mineral wool companies that operate a bonded line to 

understand the different equipment designs and whether all collection processes are the same, 

or whether design and manufacturing process differences warranted consideration of 

subcategories for the collection process. This process led to the identification of three distinct 

subcategories: vertical, horizontal, and drum. Because collection processes are only regulated 

under the rule if they occur on a bonded line, one approach may be the ‘bundling’ of collection 

and curing emission limits on bonded lines. Therefore, the revisions under consideration for 

collection and curing include emission limits for phenol, formaldehyde and methanol at vertical 

collection/curing bonded lines, horizontal collection/curing lines, and drum collection/curing 

lines. 

The Vertical Collection Design: The molten rock/slag mixture is poured from the cupola spout 

onto a group of stainless steel drums spinning in opposite directions. The spinning drums form 

fine fibers of the mineral mixture. High air volume directs the fibers off the fiberization 

spinners toward a fast-moving porous vertical conveyor belt. A strong vacuum is drawn on the 

opposite side of the belt causing the fibers to lay against the vertical belt as it moves upward. 

At the top of the conveyance, the belt travels around a curve, the vacuum is released and the 
17

fibers are removed onto a second belt that will convey the layer of binder-sprayed mineral wool 

fibers into the curing oven. Because the conveyor belt is vertical, the air volume drawn through 

the belt and fiber layer must be very high and the fiber layer that can be collected upon the belt 

is thin. In this design, ‘shot’- BB-sized black granules that are high in iron (a result of using slag 

from the iron and steel industry)- falls out of the fiber layer. The vertical design is used to 

produce a specific type of mineral wool that is low in ‘shot’ and may be used in the hydroponic 

gardening market as well as in a specialized market of insulation products in which shot is 

undesirable.

The Horizontal Collection Design: Horizontal collection is similar to vertical collection, but 

because the conveyor belt is horizontal it works with gravitational forces and the layer of 

mineral wool collected upon a horizontal belt is thinker and ‘shot’ is not selectively removed. 

The air volume that is drawn through the fiber layer is a much lower air volume than in the 

vertical design, and this air stream is conducive to thermal oxidation at the hottest part of the 

cupola exhaust stack or the existing thermal oxidizer on the curing oven. 

The Drum Collection Design: In the drum collection design, fibers are drawn using a very high 

volume air flow into the center of a rotating drum. The sides of the rotating drum have small 

holes through which the air flow may exit but the fibers are caught. The angle of the drum, a 

vacuum, and centrifugal force pull the fibers against the inside wall of the drum and out the 

end. The entire drum is enclosed and the air flow may be vented to the hottest part of the 

cupola exhaust stack or to the existing thermal oxidizer on the curing oven.

Compliance Schedule:

Section 112 allows up to 3 years for compliance with the technology standards that are 

developed as a result of the 112(d)(3) standard promulgated in 1999 or technology review

under 112(d)(6); but allows 90 days for compliance with amendments to the MACT due to the 

risk review conducted under 112(f)(2).

Through Agency review and stakeholder input, a broad range of program improvements have 

been suggested. From these EPA identified those which could only be addressed through 

regulation change, and further limited to those which would provide the most protective 

impact. The Agency plans to base all emission limits upon the industry supplied test data as 

collected under the voluntary industry ICR. 

4. APPLICABLE SMALL ENTITY DEFINITIONS

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) defines small entities as including “small businesses,” “small 

governments,” and “small organizations” (5 USC 601). The regulatory revisions being 

considered by EPA for this rulemakings are expected to affect a variety of small businesses, but 

would not affect any small governments or small organizations. The RFA references the 

definition of “small business” found in the Small Business Act, which authorizes the Small 
18

Business Administration to further define “small business” by regulation. The SBA definitions of 

small business by size standards using the North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) can be found at 13 CFR 121.201. 

The detailed listing of SBA definitions of small business for affected industries or sectors, by 

NAICS code, is included in Table 5, below.

5. SMALL ENTITIES THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED REGULATION

The following table lists industries/sectors potentially affected by the regulation. The 

estimated number of small firms within each NAICS code and the number of employees in 

those small firms is shown.

Before beginning the formal SBREFA process, EPA actively engaged in outreach with entities 

that would potentially be affected by the upcoming rulemaking. EPA held phone conferences 

and meetings with many of these companies and their trade association, the North American 

Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) to discuss the data collection effort that will 

support the proposed rulemaking. EPA provided these contacts with an early opportunity to 

ask questions and discuss their concerns with the upcoming rulemaking. 

Table 5. Small Business Industry Sector

The Mineral Wool production source category includes those facilities that manufacture rock 

and slag wool (mineral wool). Mineral wool is a fibrous, glassy substance made from natural 

rock, blast furnace slag, or other similar materials and consists of silicate fibers typically 4 to 7 

micrometers in diameter. Products made from mineral wool are used for thermal or acoustical 

insulation, sound control and absorbency, and fire protection.

All the known mineral wool production plants are major sources of HAP (none are area 

sources). The Mineral Wool NESHAP applies to owners or operators of any existing, new, or 

reconstructed mineral wool production facility that is located at a plant site that is a major 

source of HAP emissions. 

Name of 

Industry/Sector

2002 NAICS 

Code

SBA Size Standard 

for Small Business

Small Firms

Number Average 

Number of 

Employees

Mineral Wool 327993 500 5 108
19

EPA has identified seven operating major source mineral wool manufacturing facilities with ten

different cupolas, three curing ovens, three cooling operations, and three collection sources. 

Five of the seven facilities are small businesses. One large company operates two of the seven

facilities.

6. SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITY OUTREACH

EPA conducted a meeting/teleconference with potential SERs on April 27, 2011. To help them 

prepare for the meeting/teleconference, on April 14, 2011, EPA sent materials to each of the 

potential SERs via email. A list of the materials shared with the potential SERs during the prePanel outreach meeting is contained in Appendix A. For the April 27, 2011, pre-Panel outreach 

meeting with the potential SERs, EPA also invited representatives from the Office of Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

within the Office of Management and Budget. A total of four of five of the potential SERs 

participated in the meeting. EPA presented an overview of the SBREFA process, an explanation 

of the planned rulemaking, and technical background on the rule.

Following the presentations, the remaining time during the pre-Panel meeting included 

discussions of:

- the timeline for the SBAR process;

- the procedures for handling and sharing confidential business information (CBI);

- SER requests for the availability of risk and other data, including the actual emissions 

limit for formaldehyde;

- whether EPA has identified any new technology since initially setting the MACT 

standards (the only technology EPA identified was incinerators on cupolas);

- the potential start-up/shut-down/malfunction (SSM) requirements. The court vacated 

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) exemption contained in section 63.6(f)(1) 

and (h)(1) of the part 63 General Provisions, which were cited to in the Mineral Wool 

MACT; and

- the process of calculating MACT floors.

EPA asked the potential SERs to provide written comments by May 11, 2011. These written 

comments are included in Appendix A.

EPA conducted two site visits on May 12, 2011 to understand the processes and to meet with 

company representatives to discuss the upcoming rule proposal. EPA visited Thermafiber and 

Isolatek facilities, and NAIMA representatives attended both site visits along with EPA.

EPA conducted a meeting/teleconference with SERs on June 16, 2011. To help them prepare 

for the meeting/teleconference, on June 2, 2011, EPA sent materials to each of the SERs via 

email. A list of the materials shared with the SERs during the Panel outreach meeting is 

contained in Appendix A. All six SERs (see Table 6) participated in the meeting. EPA presented 
20

a brief overview of the SBREFA process and updated information on the planned rulemaking. 

The industry trade association, NAIMA, presented alternatives to the proposed emission limits 

and potential changes to the MACT standards that they feel would enable EPA to address the 

risk and Brick MACT issues without threatening the viability of the mineral wool industry (see 

Appendix A for NAIMA’s presentation). The SERs were given an opportunity to comment on the 

preliminary proposed emission limits and discuss questions and recommendations associated 

with the risk and technology reviews.

The Panel asked the SERs to provide written comments by June 30, 2011. Comments made

during the Panel outreach meeting and written comments submitted by the SERS are 

summarized in section 8 of this document.

7. LIST OF SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES

Table 6: List of Small Entity Representatives

Name Affiliation

Lee Houlditch Amerrock Products

John Dolin Industrial Insulation Group

Tom Lund Isolatek Int’l

Christopher Bullock Rock Wool Mfg

Steve Edris Thermafiber, Inc.

Angus Crane North American Insulation Manufacturers 

Association (NAIMA)

8. SUMMARY OF SER COMMENTS AND EPA RESPONSES TO SER COMMENTS

8.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected
21

Section 5 of this report, which presents the information on the entities potentially affected by 

this rule, was provided to the SERs in the pre-Panel Outreach presentation (see Appendix A).

The Panel believes that the SERs are in agreement with EPA on this matter. 

8.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance Requirements

While the Panel did not receive specific comments on reporting and recordkeeping, NAIMA 

suggested that given the expense and complexity of possible technology installation, a 7-year 

compliance deadline is requested.

8.3 Related Federal Rules

The Panel received verbal comments from SERs on potential SO2 NAAQS compliance issues. 

Specifically, if facilities add on incinerators to the existing cupolas for COS control, SO2

emissions will increase and may subject facilities to SO2 reduction requirements from the State. 

8.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives

8.4.1 Curing Ovens

NAIMA discussed the relationship among Formaldehyde, Phenol and Methanol. They stated 

that EPA’s recommended ranges for Phenol and Methanol are out of sync for Formaldehyde 

and would fundamentally force a lower Formaldehyde limit. To prevent this outcome, they 

proposed two alternative regulatory options:

Alternative 1

Three separate limits could be set at the following levels:

• formaldehyde – 0.06 lbs. per ton of melt

• phenol – 0.04 lbs. per ton of melt

• methanol 0.04 lbs. per ton of melt

Alternative 2

Use formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol and set the limit for formaldehyde 

at 0.06 lbs. per ton of melt

Discussion of the Curing Oven Alternatives:

EPA staff asked about the relationship between formaldehyde, phenol and methanol: where 

the 0.04 lbs/ton melt emission limit came from because the test data supplied to the EPA shows 

different numbers. The SERs responded that the 0.04 lb/ton melt emission limit is based on the 

relationship between (or percentage) of formaldehyde to phenol and methanol in a particular 

binder formula. The SERs stated that the phenol and methanol emission limits have to be 

consistent with the ratio of formaldehyde to phenol and methanol in the binder used. The SERs 

said they would include the data used to obtain the 0.04 lb/ton melt emission limit in their 
22

formal written comments to the Panel. The SERs stated that the EPA’s initial proposed limits 

are so low for phenol and methanol that, because of the ratio between formaldehyde, phenol, 

and methanol, the floor for formaldehyde would be created no matter what industry did. If 

industry operated within the 0.06 lb/ton melt emission limit for formaldehyde, industry would 

be above the limit for phenol and methanol due to the specific ratio in every resin batch.

EPA staff asked if the inability to meet the proposed emission limits for all three pollutants was 

a function of the product used or a function of formaldehyde degrading in heat. The SERs 

responded no, and further elaborated that it was a function of the resin in the batch formula 

used. The SERs agreed with EPA staff that this was a reflection of the existing technology. 

NAIMA offered to organize a meeting with the binder supplier and the EPA to discuss how the 

ratio of formaldehyde to phenol and methanol are inextricably linked.

SBA staff asked if there was a difference between the ratio information presented under 

alternative 1 for the curing oven (slide 6) and the test data the EPA had received to date under 

the ICR. EPA staff suspected that this was the case and explained that the preliminary emission 

limits are based on the testing results from industry and seem to be 2 orders of magnitude 

different from the emission limits under alternative 1. 

SBA staff pointed out that alternative 1 for curing ovens is not setting a new MACT; instead of 

setting a new MACT based on the top 2 performers, industry wants to retain formaldehyde as a 

surrogate for phenol and methanol; and it sounds like the EPA is presenting a MACT calculation 

(top 12% or top performer calculation) rather than a translation of what the industry is doing. 

SBA staff went on to say that breaking the surrogacy by establishing equivalent emission limits 

is very different from setting a new MACT. SBA staff wanted to make sure everyone

understands that alternative 1 is not setting a new MACT standard, but is breaking surrogacy by 

using the proportions in the existing technology. The SERs replied that alternative 1 is a 

compromise while alternative 2 is their preferred method. The SER bottom line was that 

industry cannot meet the proposed emission levels because they are too low. 

EPA staff stated that the proposed emission levels for phenol and methanol are UPL derived 

limits based on test data supplied by the industry. EPA staff also stated that there are 3 curing 

lines and so asked if industry was saying that 1 or 2 plants operate outside of the proposed 

ranges. EPA staff elaborated that the test data supplied by industry showed emission levels 

well within the EPA’s proposed ranges and so questioned how actual emission levels can be 1 to 

2 orders of magnitude greater. The SERs replied that there was one firm that incinerated from 

the curing oven, and it is the lowest performer on formaldehyde industry-wide. 

SBA staff interjected that there seems to be disconnect between the EPA and the SERs 

regarding how the test data is being interpreted. The SERs are saying that the test results 

available to NAIMA do not justify EPA’s proposed limits, but EPA is using test data supplied by 

the industry to calculate the limits. It was agreed by EPA staff, the other Panel members, and 

the SERs that another meeting was needed as soon as possible to review the test data together 

and resolve the matter. 
23

8.4.2 Collection

NAIMA argued that using control technology on the collection chamber is cost-prohibitive and 

proposed two alternatives:

Alternative 1

4 lbs. per ton of melt for formaldehyde and use formaldehyde as surrogate for phenol and 

methanol

Alternative 2

4 lbs. per ton of melt for formaldehyde, 2.7 lbs. per ton of melt for phenol, and 2.7 lbs. per ton 

of melt for methanol

Discussion of the Collection Alternatives:

The SERs stated that the emission limits on collection chambers would be a completely new 

control technology not included in previous MACT standard. The SERs and the fiberglass 

industry (also represented by NAIMA) as a whole voiced a number of concerns: installing a 

control technology on the collection chamber (an incinerator) is cost-prohibitive; and that the 

high cost will force companies to go out of business for relatively little benefit (referring to the 

$600,000 per ton reduction on slide 8 of the NAIMA presentation). EPA staff clarified that the 

incinerator is not controlling SO2 and that everyone needs to understand that different 

pollutants and control technologies have different cost-effectiveness values. The SERs asked if 

the $600,000 estimate for installing an incinerator was within the range of cost benefit ratio

established by BACT. EPA staff said no that seems high, but they wanted everyone to recognize 

that making the comparison to SO2 cannot be made in this situation. 

Regarding slide 9 of the NAIMA presentation, EPA staff asked if the 4 lbs/ton melt was based on 

a MACT calculation or test data. NAIMA answered that it was derived by looking at the data 

and talking with members about what is feasible for them to achieve. EPA staff reiterated that

the UPL range is 0.3 to 1 for formaldehyde and industry has claimed between 4 to 10 times 

higher than that - what is asserted as possible disagrees with the test data. The SERs responded 

that the test data are very limited, but what is important is that the addition of the collection 

chamber is an introduction of a new source. 

NAIMA asked SERs to speak about the difficulties with installing a control technology in such a 

narrow space. A SER stated that the previous MACT required industry to install an incinerator 

that is not designed to handle the currently required air volume - to install an incinerator to 

handle a large amount of air for such a small amount of contaminants isn’t feasible and is costprohibitive. Another SER stated that a sister company in Finland has no control in this area - it’s 

impractical and would take an incinerator 10 times the size currently installed and would be 

more costly.
24

SBA staff stated that it sounds like there is a complete mismatch of test data - there is no 

middle ground between what the SERs are saying and the test data so there is a problem with 

the information that has been provided to the EPA at this point. EPA staff stated that a lot of 

the information is CBI and specifics cannot be discussed. EPA staff asked if some information 

could be declared as non-CBI so that they could discuss it at the next meeting. NAIMA 

suggested they would follow-up with the individual companies about what they are willing to 

share. SBA staff added that if this is an issue of interpreting the test data incorrectly, everyone 

can sit together in a room to discuss the test data - if EPA staff speaks with each company 

alone, the CBI designation does not need to be broken. EPA staff stated that the actual test 

data cannot be held as confidential, but process design can be - under the CAA, the EPA cannot 

set an emission limit outside of the range that the test data show.

The SERs stressed that they are concerned with the addition of collection chamber limits to the 

MACT. EPA staff said that uncontrolled sources that emit HAP must be regulated under Section 

112, however, alternatives to satisfy Section 112 are welcome from the SERs. SBA staff

mentioned that the EPA could set a health-based emission limit that could adequately protect 

public health and that alternative for curing and collection ovens should not be forgotten - for 

collection in particular, if the formaldehyde, phenol and methanol coming off of a new or 

uncovered source does not present a health hazard, then a health-based emission limit 

incorporating that practice might be feasible using information gleaned from the RTR. EPA staff

asked the SERs to include this information in their written comments. NAIMA asked that EPA

consider a health based emission limit for formaldehyde collection chamber emissions, but 

acknowledged that formaldehyde is a carcinogen. 

8.4.3 Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) Emissions from Cupolas

NAIMA questioned whether the Brick MACT decision requires the imposition of new 

requirements, stating that the cost of each incineration system could be quite expensive, 

between $3 and $6 million. Additionally, NAIMA expressed concern about whether all 

companies with incinerators can meet the proposed limit of 0.05. Finally, NAIMA argued that 

there is insufficient scientific support for risk associated with COS. As a result they proposed 

that EPA adopt one of the following alternatives:

Alternative 1

An emission limit for carbonyl sulfide of 5 lbs. per ton of melt

Alternative 2 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 112(b)(3)(c), “delete” carbonyl sulfide from the Clean Air Act Section 

112 list of regulated hazardous air pollutants (HAP)

Alternative 3

Subcategorization of the industry based on melt rates:
25

• Greater than 9 tons per hour

• 6 to 9 tons per hour

• Less than 6 tons per hour 

Alternative 4 

Threshold limits that limit the scope of applicability - 250 tons of COS per year

Alternative 5

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(4), consider a health threshold when establishing a COS 

emission limit

Alternative 6 

Subcategorize the industry to reflect the diversity of the industry and the products it 

manufactures

Alternative 7

Use the combined statistical-technical procedure in establishing the COS emission limit, which 

considers all the emissions data and eliminates outliers and questionable data to come up with 

an industry average

Alternative 8

Provide for exemptions, specifically any unit not posing a greater than one in a million 

maximum individual lifetime cancer risk from COS be exempted

Alternative 9

Cupolas installed prior to the 1999 implementation of the Mineral Wool MACT Standard not be 

required to meet the newly proposed COS emission limits

Alternative 10

Create a health-based risk standard for carbonyl sulfide using the World Health Organization 

(WHO) framework or other alternative.

Alternative 11 

Because insulation products increase energy efficiency, create an Offset/Credit program. The 

COS emissions limit could be established based on accurate data of the best performing 5 

sources, but allow mineral wool companies to offset those emissions based on pounds of 

product produced.
26

Discussion of the COS Alternatives:

The SERs stated that companies with no incinerator will be put out of business by the proposed 

COS limits, while those with incinerators definitely cannot meet the limit. The SERs felt that 

COS is not correctly designated as a HAP; it is a byproduct of the manufacturing process. The 

SERs stated that the majority of COS in the atmosphere is produced by natural sources 

(volcanoes, marshes, etc.) and the mineral wool industry contributes an amount nowhere near 

the amount occurring from nature. Incineration creates SO2 at much greater levels than COS,

and the SERs would like the EPA to consider alternatives such as not regulating COS or 

alternatives to proposing a limit that cannot be met. The Panel staff members agreed that the 

extent of COS emissions from natural sources was high and that other companies have had

conversations about this. EPA staff stated that about half of the cupolas in the mineral wool

industry incinerate their COS for energy recovery - such facilities reduce their use of coke and, 

in the long term, conserve resources using this technology. EPA staff stated that all options will 

be costly, and EPA is looking for regulatory flexibility alternatives that will be feasible for 

industry. 

The SERs stated they prefer alternative 2, the delisting of COS, better than any other option. 

They asked that the EPA look at the possibility of deleting COS from the list of HAPs pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 112 (b)(3)(c).

Regarding alternatives 3 and 6 (slides 12-13 of the NAIMA presentation), the Panel staff asked if 

the SERs would be able to provide a specific emission limit once the SERs and the EPA come to a 

conclusion on the test data. The SERs responded affirmatively and also that they would be able 

to determine which companies fall into what category. 

The Panel staff was concerned about whether alternatives 8 and 9 could answer the Brick issues 

defined by the EPA (i.e., how do they link back to Section 112) - these alternatives are blurring 

the line of MACT setting with the residual risk review done on the MACT already set. The Panel

staff said it could see how it could be a health-based limit, but not standing on its own. The 

SERs responded that they can elaborate and would make that connection in their written 

comments.

SBA staff, who was not familiar with the WHO framework referenced by alternative 10, asked if 

the SERs could send more detailed information. The SERs said the WHO framework they were 

thinking of is related to the electromagnetic industry and they would look for other examples 

and share this with the Panel.

Regarding alternative 11, the Panel staff asked for more substance from the SERs. The SERs 

responded that they are in a formal process to get recognized for offsets and that they have a 

framework that could be used. 

The SERs stated that the Administrator could also remove COS from the HAP list in as little as 90 

days. Panel staff asked the SERs if they have signed a formal position. The SERs stated they

have not done so and asked if it was more work for the EPA if they did so and whether or not 
27

there was a downside. Panel staff stated that the EPA is on a deadline to propose and that this 

opportunity may have to wait until after the proposal since the SERs just brought up this up. 

Additional SER Comments:

After Panel outreach, NAIMA expounded on several of the above alternatives (3, 4, 5, 6, and 9) 

and provided some new alternatives which came about as a result of Panel discussions. NAIMA 

provided the following alternatives in a letter to the Agency on June 30, 2011.

Alternative 1 

Given the limited risk data and the fact that over 80 percent of atmospheric COS comes from 

nature, NAIMA recommends an emission limit for carbonyl sulfide of 5 lbs. per ton of melt.

Alternative 2

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 112 (b) (3)(c), either the EPA Administrator or NAIMA should petition to 

delete carbonyl sulfide from “the list” of hazardous air pollutants.

Alternative 3 (revised to provide more detail)

NAIMA urges EPA to subcategorize the industry based on permitted maximum melt rate:

• Greater than 9 tons per hour

- USG – Red Wing

- USG – Walworth

• 6 to 9 tons per hour

- Industrial Insulation Group

- Rock Wool Manufacturing

- Thermafiber

• Less than 6 tons per hour

- Amerrock

- Isolatek International

The CAA grants the Administrator authority to “distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of 

sources within a category or sub-category.” Obviously, melt rate has important relevance to 

the size of the source and the economic feasibility of imposing additional costly controls. 

Therefore, melt rate provides a useful indication of the required difference among plants to 

justify subcategorization. The melt rate can effectively predict the level of emissions. In fact, 

the current Mineral Wool MACT Standard uses the hourly melt rate to determine compliance 

with the MACT standard.8

 Therefore, NAIMA urges EPA to subcategorize the industry based on 

melt rate as indicated above.

 8 64 FR 31695 (June 14, 1999)
28

Alternative 4 

NAIMA urges EPA to subcategorize the industry based on bonded and unbonded.

During promulgation of the original MACT, the mineral wool industry was subcategorized into 

two groups: bonded and unbonded. Since the bonded and unbonded subcategories are already 

established by EPA, NAIMA does not go into detailed analysis of the difference between 

bonded and unbonded. NAIMA requests that these subcategories be retained. Although the 

differences between bonded and unbonded lines apply principally to the non-cupola portions 

of the line, EPA usually subcategorizes two or more sources within a category at the level of the 

entire source even though the sources may have some emission points in common. There is 

precedent for different subcategories for various production processes that have some 

emission points in common but are different with respect to other emission points.9

 Therefore, 

subcategorizing the entire mineral wool industry into bonded and unbonded subcategories is 

totally appropriate. The subcategories would be the following:

• Bonded

- Industrial Insulation Group

- Rock Wool Manufacturing

- Thermafiber

• Unbonded

- Amerrock

- Isolatek International

- USG – Red Wing

- USG – Walworth

Alternative 5 (Alternative 10 in panel outreach; expanded here)

NAIMA urges EPA to subcategorize the industry to reflect the diversity of the industry and the

primary products it manufactures:

• Residential Loose-Fill

- Amerrock

• Ceiling Tiles

- USG – Red Wing

- USG – Walworth

• Fireproofing

- Isolatek International

• Commercial and Industrial

- Industrial Insulation Group

- Rock Wool Manufacturing

- Thermafiber

 9 EPA subdivided the source category for acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (“ABS”) into 5 subcategories based on 

different processes even though all had common emission points (60 FR 16090-16111 (March 29, 1995)).
29

The CAA allows grouping of facilities based on such broad terms as “class” and “type.” EPA 

specifically created different subcategories in the leather industry based on “types of leather 

products produced.”10

As suggested above, the subcategories based on product types also display a variety of 

differences. For example, the residential blowing wool produced by Amerrock uses no binder. 

Therefore, there are no formaldehyde emissions. Amerrock products are produced for the 

residential building market. Similarly, USG’s two plants are making unbonded products to 

produce ceiling tiles. While this product is ultimately bonded with non-phenolic binders, the 

binder is not applied at the manufacturing site. Ceiling tiles are produced largely for the 

commercial market.

Isolatek produces mineral wool for fire proofing products. The mineral wool is combined with 

other ingredients to create a spray applied for fire proofing of commercial and industrial 

facilities. Again, Isolatek uses no formaldehyde binders.

Commercial and industrial insulation is produced by Thermafiber, Industrial Insulation Group, 

and Rock Wool Manufacturing using formaldehyde binders.

Alternative 6 

NAIMA urges EPA to subcategorize the industry based on raw material. This subcategorization 

would be based on predominant use of rock or slag. More than fifty percent use of rock or slag 

material would place the manufacturer in a particular subcategory. This subcategory could also 

be characterized as recycled (slag) and non-recycled (rock) plants. There are important 

differences between recycled and non-recycled plants with respect to raw materials, emissions, 

and products. The distinction between rock and slag plants is well recognized within the 

industry and in the scientific and technical literature, and therefore, subcategorization of rock 

and slag (recycled or non-recycled) plants would not be breaking new ground. The 

subcategorization would be as follows:

• Rock (Non-Recycled)

- Amerrock

- Industrial Insulation Group

• Slag (Recycled)

- Isolatek International

- Rock Wool Manufacturing

- Thermafiber

- USG – Red Wing

- USG – Walworth

 10 J. Michael Geers and Claudia M. O’Brien, “Basis and Rationale for Potential Subcategorization of Coal-fired 

Electric Utility Steam Generating Units,” March 8, 2002, p. 10 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/ 

9brh04.pdf).
30

Alternative 7

NAIMA urges EPA to subcategorize the industry based on use of air pollution control 

differences, specifically, use of an incinerator. EPA’s criteria for subcategorization includes “air 

pollution control differences, process operation . . ., emissions characteristics, control device 

applicability and costs, safety, and opportunities for pollution prevention.”11 Subcategorization 

based on existence of cupola incinerator controls and non-incinerator controls would be as 

follows:

• With Incinerator

- Industrial Insulation Group

- Thermafiber

- USG – Red Wing

- USG – Walworth

• Without Incinerator

- Amerrock

- Isolatek International

- Rock Wool Manufacturing

Alternative 8

NAIMA urges EPA to subcategorize the industry based on the age of the facility/cupola. The 

subcategories would be as follows:

• Prior to 1950

- Isolatek International

- Thermafiber

• 1951 – 1975

- Rock Wool Manufacturing

- USG – Walworth

• 1976 – Present

- Amerrock

- Industrial Insulation Group

- USG – Red Wing

Alternative 9

NAIMA urges EPA to subcategorize the industry based on cupola stack heights. The 

subcategories would be as follows:

• 150 feet and above

- Amerrock

- Industrial Insulation Group

- USG – Red Wing

• 100 to 150 feet

- Rock Wool Manufacturing

 11 59 FR 26429-26444 (May 20, 1994)
31

- USG – Walworth

• Below 100 Feet

- Isolatek International

- Thermafiber

Alternative 10 (Alternative 5 at panel outreach; expanded here)

NAIMA advocates use of an alternative health based limit under § 112 (d)(4) of the Clean Air Act 

for the collection chamber. As noted above and affirmed by EPA, emissions are low and the risk 

is low. Therefore, to avoid unnecessarily stringent emission limits, NAIMA urges EPA to create 

health based limits.12

Section 112 (d)(4) is designed to prevent the promulgation of unduly stringent emission limits 

simply for the sake of regulation. Section 112 (d)(4) allows EPA to set health based limits for 

certain HAPs based on established health thresholds as an alternative to promulgating specific 

limits. Human exposures to a HAP at levels below its reference concentrations (“RfC”) or 

reference dose are considered safe.

NAIMA strongly urges EPA to set health based standards under § 112 (d)(4) when facts support 

its use, such as carbonyl sulfide which is created in abundance by nature itself.

Alternative 11

EPA could establish a threshold limit that would narrow the scope of applicability to only those 

facilities exceeding a specified threshold amount. NAIMA recommends a threshold of 250 tons 

of COS per year.

Alternative 12 (Alternative 9 at panel outreach)

EPA could establish a grandfather clause and exempt those cupolas installed prior to the 1999 

implementation of the Mineral Wool MACT Standard.

Alternative 13

Use the combined statistical-technical procedure in establishing the COS emission limit, which 

considers all the emissions data and eliminates outliers and questionable data to come up with 

an industry average.

Alternative 14

Offset/Credit – EPA recognizes that improved energy efficiency reduces pollutants. Insulation 

products increase energy efficiency. EPA could establish the COS emissions limit based on 

accurate data of the best performing five sources, but allow mineral wool companies to offset 

those emissions based on pounds of products produced.

 12 Section 112 (d)(4) applies to non-carcinogenic HAPs; carbonyl sulfide is not a carcinogen.
32

8.4.4 Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrochloric Acid Emissions From Cupolas

The SERs disagree that the Brick MACT should require limits for HF and HCl because the 

previous Mineral Wool MACT did not include these pollutants and because industry-wide 

emissions are “low”. Additionally, the SERs argued that the proposed limits are so low that 

they essentially require the installation of control technology. The most effective technology, 

wet scrubbing, is cost prohibitive. Because of the disagreement of the achievability of the 

proposed standards, SBA staff stated that there may be a disagreement between the industry 

and the EPA about the test data. EPA staff stated that the HF and HCl limits are UPL derived 

limits based on test data provided by the industry. NAIMA made four recommendations for

alternative regulatory options:

Alternative 1

Do not set HF and HCl limits for the Mineral Wool MACT because the Brick MACT decision does 

not require it.

Alternative 2 

Establish threshold limits that reduce the scope of applicability

• For example, 1,000 tons of HF per year

• For example, 1,000 tons of HCl per year 

Alternative 3

Establish an HF or HCl limit based on actual mineral wool emissions data averages – establish a 

feasible and achievable limit. Mineral wool emission data is limited and based only on BTEC 

data collected last year.

Alternative 4 

Adopt the following emission limits for Mineral Wool MACT:

• Hydrogen Chloride – 25 tons per year

• Hydrogen Fluoride – 25 tons per year 

The SERs discussed the alternatives to the EPA proposed limits for HF and HCl, stating that 

alternative 1 would be the easiest for them to achieve. Panel staff asked where the 25 tons/yr 

limit is coming from in alternative 4 (slide 18). The SERs responded that it is a number based on 

what industry can meet across the board similar to the 25 tons/yr limit for other HAPs. Panel

staff stated that the threshold for major and area sources is 10 tons and 25 tons for overall 

pollutants. 

Panel staff asked the SERs if they intended to establish a limit of 25 tons/yr from this operation 

instead of having an emission limit of tons/lb melt. The SERs confirmed that was their 

intention. Panel staff asked if in the long-term this would be prohibitive to industry production 

and their ability to operate, or if the emissions are so low that industry would never exceed 25 
33

tons/yr. The SERs responded that yes, emissions are much lower than 25 tons/yr - the 

emissions data industry has on HF and HCl are limited since they previously never had to test 

for these pollutants. 

Panel staff asked what the drivers of these acid gases are and whether it is a function of 

production process or inputs. The SERs responded that it is a function of inputs and fuel that 

have residual fluorides and chlorides in them. Panel staff asked if, outside of switching fuels 

and inputs, if there was a process change that could reduce emissions or if the emissions could 

only be reduced by taking them out of the process. The SERs stated that the issue is how and 

where to put all of these controls and still be able to manufacture a product. 

Additional SER Comments:

After the Panel outreach meeting, NAIMA consolidated two of the above alternatives (2 and 4) 

and provided two new alternatives which came about as a result of Panel discussions, as 

follows:

Alternative 2 ( a consolidation of Alternatives 2 and 4 from panel outreach)

NAIMA urges EPA to establish a threshold limit to narrow the scope of applicability to the 

emission limits proposed for HF and HCl. For example, any facility emitting 100 or more tons of 

HF per year would be subject to EPA’s proposed emission limits. Similarly, any facility emitting 

100 or more tons of HCl per year would be subject to EPA’s proposed emission limits. 

Threshold limits for HF and HCL would lessen the regulatory burdens of an amended Mineral 

Wool MACT.

Alternative 3

If the first two alternatives are not implemented, NAIMA urges EPA to establish a feasible and 

achievable limit based on actual mineral wool emissions data. Because mineral wool emissions 

data is limited and based solely on BTEC data collected last year, NAIMA recommends the 

following emissions limits for the Mineral Wool MACT Standard:

• Hydrogen Fluoride – 1.0 lbs. per ton of melt

• Hydrochloric Acid – 1.0 lbs. per ton of melt

Alternative 4

NAIMA has recommended a variety of subcategorization options, including application of the 

existing bonded and unbonded subcategories to the entire source. If EPA sets a HF and HCl 

limit, NAIMA urges EPA to extend the bonded and unbonded subcategorization to the 

regulation of HF and HCl. Similarly, if any other subcategorizations are established for the 

mineral wool industry, NAIMA urges EPA to apply the subcategorization to the entire source, 

which would include the regulation of HF and HCl emissions.

8.4.5 Start-up, Shutdown, Malfunction
34

The SERs stated that they feel the EPA is suggesting that SSM is a Brick MACT issue, and they 

wanted to know if they satisfied the EPA’s questions in their previous letter (dated 5/16/11 to 

S. Fairchild). EPA staff stated that SSM is not a brick MACT issue, but they are connected

through litigation: the Mineral Wool MACT referred to the General Provisions for SSM 

requirements, and those requirements have been vacated by the court. As a result, all 

regulated entities must comply with the MACT at all times, regardless of whether it is in startup 

or shutdown (malfunction will be addressed under a separate rule). EPA staff asked the SERs 

what type of emissions occur as a result of regular operational conditions and what additional 

emissions occur as part of startup and shutdown. EPA staff asked if emissions are greater during 

the startup process and if so, how much greater? Are there additional emissions during 

shutdown? How often do startup and shutdown occur? EPA staff mentioned that because a 

separate rule is being developed for malfunction, the EPA cannot look at any special 

considerations.

Panel staff stated that for other rules, if startup and shutdown are included in the test data, the 

EPA may be able to set a numerical limit based on that. If the test data does not include startup 

and shutdown, the SERs need to communicate to the EPA what the startup and shutdown 

emissions are and how they are different from normal operations. The EPA cannot simply say 

that startup and shutdown are not included in the emission levels. Panel staff asked the SERs if 

the test data includes startup and shutdown as part of normal operations. If not, the SERs need 

to make that claim quickly and determine whether or not there are substantial differences from 

normal operations. If they look like normal operations, then it’s ok. 

The SERs stated that they would like to discuss startup and shutdown during the next meeting. 

EPA staff stated that there are 3 ways the test data are expressed: concentration, lbs/hr and 

lbs/ton melt. Because emissions are measured in lbs. per ton of melt, it is impossible to 

measure emissions during start-up or shut-down because no melt is being produced during 

start-up or shut-down. SBA staff mentioned that that almost begs for a total emission limit. 

EPA staff and the SERs agreed that previous limits were written in lbs/ton of melt and they both 

want to keep it that way. EPA staff indicated that they can simply create an emission limit 

based on concentration for startup and that they will run it by other project leads to see what 

has been done. 

8.5 EPA RESPONSES TO SER COMMENTS

8.5.1 Curing Ovens

The court found that EPA erred in its development of surrogates under the MACT standards, 

and failed to establish the facts of surrogacy relationships. In a separate case, the court agreed 

with EPA that nothing in the Clean Air Act suggests that it is prohibited from resetting the MACT 

floors in order to correct its own errors. They also agreed that the approach petitioners labeled 

“MACT-on-MACT would be more accurately described as “MACT-on-Unsupportable-StandardsErroneously-Labeled-as-MACT”13. The Agency therefore must use only valid and supportable 

 13 Medical Waste Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, # 09-1297 (D.C. Cir. 2011). 
35

surrogacy relationships such as exist between PM and HAP metals. This relationship does not 

exist between formaldehyde and phenol/methanol because formaldehyde can decrease in a 

binder formulation independent of phenol and/or methanol. Moreover, the use of 

formaldehyde as a tracer compound in RCRA rules to indicate complete combustion of a high 

concentration organic waste stream in a hazardous waste incinerator is very different from 

using it as a surrogate for organic compounds in low concentration for an industrial exhaust 

application. Because the incinerator, the waste stream and the media are all different, the 

relationship cannot be extended without supportable data showing the surrogacy relationship 

is valid. Rather, industry has commented elsewhere that the binder ingredients and 

formulation can vary from one mineral wool producer to the next, and that the test data from 

one is not necessarily relevant for another company. Therefore, EPA finds that the surrogacy 

developed for the MACT rule is not valid, and emission limits must be added for both phenol 

and methanol to the formaldehyde standard. These emission limits will be based on industrysupplied data collected by source-specific testing under the voluntary ICR.

For several process emission limits, including those for curing ovens, the SERs commented that 

the emission limits developed by EPA for the industry are too low and facilities can not 

currently meet these limits. However, EPA based the emission limits on industry’s own testing 

conducted under their voluntary ICR. Under this approach, the industry approached EPA and 

requested that they be allowed to develop an internal response rather than receive a formal 

testing order under CAA Section 114. Industry also agreed that any test results submitted 

would be representative of emissions from sources subject to the MACT standard. The project 

lead agreed to this approach as long as the information needed by EPA to conduct the risk, 

technology and regulatory reviews was obtained and that the collected information was valid. 

EPA must base all decisions upon a complete and valid set of data. The data set is the set of 

data developed on industry source testing and ICR responses under the voluntary ICR 

undertaken specifically for these Agency reviews. Moreover, emissions testing was to be 

conducted according to EPA test methods; a responsible official of each company had to sign 

the ICR and emission testing responses as valid and true; and the testing contractor had to sign 

that the emission testing was conducted according to the requirements of EPA’s test methods. 

Therefore, EPA believes the industry should stand behind the testing as valid and accurate.

After determining (using the test data) that the risks from this industry are low, the Agency is 

also using the same data to review the MACT standard to correct deficiencies in the rule. Only 

formaldehyde limits (as a surrogate for phenol and methanol) at the curing process were 

established under the 1999 MACT standard. EPA is correcting that deficiency by adding phenol 

and methanol limits to the curing oven limits in the 1999 MACT. 

8.5.2 Collection

After determining (using the test data) that the risks from this industry are low, EPA is also 

using the same data to review the MACT standard to correct deficiencies in the rule. Emission 

limits for collection were not established under the 1999 MACT standard, and this process is 

responsible for nearly all the risk to the public from this source category. However, during 
36

conversations with industry, EPA learned it is may be appropriate to subcategorize collection 

processes according to the orientation and design of the collection process. As a result, EPA 

intends to propose to subcategorize according to vertical, horizontal, and drum collection. Each 

type of collection process would be required to meet emission limits for formaldehyde, phenol, 

and methanol, as expressed on a lb (pollutant)/ton (production) basis.

8.5.3 Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) Emissions From Cupolas

In the Brick MACT decision and vacature, the court found that EPA erred in its development of 

surrogates under the MACT standards and failed to establish the facts of surrogacy 

relationships. Only carbon monoxide (CO) limits (as a surrogate for carbonyl sulfide) at the 

cupola was established under the 1999 MACT standard. As with other corrections for 

inappropriate surrogacy in the rule, EPA is correcting that deficiency by replacing CO limits in 

the 1999 MACT with COS limits. 

Technology Review:

In addition to addressing rule deficiencies identified by the courts in the proposed amendments 

to the rule, EPA is conducting both a risk and technology review. The Clean Air Act Section 112 

technology review requires EPA to review new technological developments within the industry. 

EPA may consider the costs of such new technologies, as well as other considerations in this 

review. EPA has established that of the 11 cupolas operating in the mineral wool industry, six 

have installed incinerators to burn COS and reclaim that energy for use back in the cupola. This 

industry practice is widespread because it reduces consumption of coke, which is the most 

expensive of all the raw materials used in the mineral wool industry. SERs informed EPA that 

the cost of coke has increased 8-fold since promulgation of the MACT, so industry is seeking 

cost savings on this expensive raw material. In addition, one SER noted that fuel switching is a 

more cost effective option over the long run than incineration because it does not require the 

use of coke. Melter replacement and fuel switching is under consideration across industry, but 

because it involves discontinuance and replacement of the cupola with an entirely different 

melting technology, no small business has undertaken fuel switching at this time. 

EPA concedes that in recent months the economic downturn in the US and worldwide has had a 

tremendous impact on all American industry, none more key than in the construction industry. 

EPA has considered these factors in evaluating the cost effectiveness during the technology 

review process. 

As described in Section 3, new processes and technologies (RTOs) are in place on cupolas in the 

mineral wool production industry since promulgation of the MACT in 1999. These technology 

developments can be divided into two classes: those that form and discharge SO2 as a result of 

oxidizing COS, and those that decrease levels of sulfur in the raw materials, thereby reducing 

the potential for formation of the sulfur compounds COS and SO2. 

COS Oxidation Technologies:
37

Thermal Oxidation: Because coke is the single most expensive ingredient in mineral wool 

production, RTOs were developed in response to industry’s interest in reducing the 

consumption of coke. The use of RTOs provide a long-term cost and energy saving option for 

the mineral wool industry. The initial cost of RTO purchase and installation (about $0.4 million) 

is recouped over a period of 5-7 years due to the decreased coke expense. One facility found it 

economically advantageous to install the RTO in spite of the State requirement to also install 

SO2 controls to avoid Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit violations that would 

have resulted from the increase in SO2 output as a secondary pollutant from COS oxidation. 

Oxygen Injection: Oxygen injection is used at one plant to reduce COS emissions from the 

cupola. In this technology, oxygen is injected into the cupola ports during the melting 

operation. The injected oxygen drives the chemical reaction of COS to CO2 and SO2 so that COS 

emissions are greatly reduced from the cupola stack. 

The formation and emissions of SO2 from the cupola makes it hard to consider either oxygen 

injection or thermal oxidation as improvements in control technology. To the contrary, these 

technologies contribute to adverse health effects as a result of increases in ambient levels of 

SO2. 

Low Sulfur Raw Materials:

Low Sulfur Slag: At least one mineral wool producer uses low sulfur slag to produce mineral 

wool while decreasing the potential to form sulfur compounds in the exhaust stack. Low sulfur 

slag may be purchased at iron and steel plants operating electric arc furnaces that are fueled 

with a low sulfur coal and are melting low sulfur content steel scrap. Because the source of slag 

is iron and steel scrap melted in an EAF, the slag by definition is produced from at least the 

second melting of the iron and steel. Therefore, most of the sulfur associated with iron ore has 

been liberated from the metal by the time it is returned as scrap to the EAF. In addition, 

regulations restricting the levels of SO2 that can be discharged into the ambient air have 

become increasingly restrictive and are driving the secondary iron and steel markets to lower

sulfur raw materials as well. It is reasonable to conclude that this effort to purge sulfur from 

industrial inputs results in waste products that are similarly low in sulfur. 

Low Sulfur Coke: Some industries choose to purchase low sulfur coke to reduce the level of 

sulfur compounds in their emissions. Coke containing no more than 2% sulfur is available 

outside the U.S., but at this time is not available for import. Coke containing no more than 3% 

sulfur is available at high cost within the US. The primary aluminum industry purchases this 

grade of coke. It is reasonable to conclude, however, that the small businesses that comprise 

the mineral wool industry cannot easily afford low sulfur coke.

Equipment and Fuel Switching: One SER noted that fuel switching is a more cost effective 

option over the long run than incineration because it does not involve the use of coke, which 

has become cost prohibitive. Melter replacement and fuel switching is under consideration 

across industry, but because it involves discontinuance and replacement of the cupola with an 

entirely different melting technology, no small business has undertaken fuel switching at this 
38

time. At least one facility is currently considering switching out the cupola and replacing it with 

a different mineral melting technology (such as a furnace) fueled by natural gas. This is being 

considered a viable alternative because the cost of an RTO to reclaim energy for the cupola is 

not as cost effective in the long run as is the equipment and fuel switching option. This option 

would involve a substantial period of time (no less than 1 year) to replace the cupola and 

associated equipment with a furnace or similar melting equipment. The replacement of coke 

with natural gas would greatly reduce the sulfur content of the raw materials and the resulting 

emissions of the sulfur compounds COS and SO2. 

SO2 NAAQS Considerations:

In addition, EPA is keenly aware of the secondary pollutant issues associated with incineration 

of COS. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions are expected to increase on a pound per pound basis 

with the incineration of COS. That is, for every pound of COS, a little more than one pound of 

SO2 is released into the ambient air. In recognition of the health effects of SO2, in 2010 EPA 

amended the SO2 NAAQS by lowering the 1-hour, 24-hour, and annual ambient air 

concentration limits of SO2. States have located and installed monitoring stations to collect 

data on SO2 levels in areas thought to be most appropriate for this type of pollutant. 

Monitoring stations have been receiving data for several years, and EPA will propose 

designations of nonattainment based upon the States 2008 through 2010 monitoring data and 

any applicable modeling data submitted. Designation of nonattainment areas have not been 

completed as of the writing of this document. Designations were recommended by the States in 

June 2011 and are expected to be finalized by EPA in 2012. Therefore, it is unclear at this time 

whether any of the mineral wool companies are currently situated in areas that will be 

designated as nonattainment based on SO2 monitoring. 

As with the other emission limits in the proposed rule, the MACT floor emission limits for COS 

are based upon industry test data provided to EPA under industry’s voluntary ICR. Any mineral 

wool facility that is unable to meet the emission limits in the rule will have a number of COS 

reduction technologies that are used currently in the industry; these include:

Table 7. COS Reduction Technologies in the Mineral Wool Industry

Technology Relative Cost

Oxygen injection Least expensive

Use of low-sulfur slag in the cupola V

Use of low-sulfur coke in the cupola V
39

Thermal Oxidizer V

Melter changeout and fuel switching Most expensive

8.5.4 Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrochloric Acid Emissions From Cupolas

As with other amendments to the Mineral Wool MACT, emission limits for HF and HCl are being 

added to the rule to correct Brick MACT deficiencies. HF and HCl are emitted from mineral 

wool production cupolas. HF and HCl are HAP and under Section 112 EPA must establish 

emission limits for them. Therefore, using industry’s test data, EPA calculated the MACT floor 

for HF and HCl from existing cupolas; these data show cupolas achieve the following emission 

limits, considering variability:

Table 8. Existing and New Cupola Emission Limits

HAP Emission Limit, lb/ton

HF 0.014

HCl 0.01

8.5.5 Start-up, Shutdown, Malfunction

Industry responses to the ICR indicate that cupolas are the process that could be affected by 

startup and shutdown requirements; industry responses also indicate that control equipment is 

functioning during process startup and shutdown events. Emissions during startup and 

shutdown are no greater than during normal processing of the cupola. Therefore, from an 

engineering perspective, there should not be excess emissions during startup and shutdown 

events. 

9. PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

9.1 Number and Types of Entities Affected
40

Six companies exist in this industry; five of the six companies are small businesses. All small 

businesses in the mineral wool production industry operate under NAICS code 327993.

9.2 Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance

The proposed rule under consideration potentially impacts small businesses by requiring new 

emission limits on processes that were not regulated under the MACT standard promulgated in 

1999, by requiring emission limits for pollutants that were not regulated under the MACT, or 

both processes and pollutants not regulated under the MACT. All companies are subject to 

Title V operating permits requirements, and as such will be required to add the newly regulated 

processes to their operating permits along with compliance demonstrations that the processes 

meet each pollutant emission limit in the rule. Compliance testing will be required to be 

conducted using EPA methods for each pollutant. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements 

are not expected to change from the MACT, with the exception of additional pollutants and 

processes included in such reports.

9.3 Related Federal Rules 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Dioxide: The most prevalent technology for 

reducing COS emissions will increase emissions of SO2. Under the current NAAQS, none of the 

small entities are in nonattainment areas, so installation of emissions control equipment should 

not subject them to additional permitting requirements under the SO2 NAAQS. However, EPA 

cannot make such assurances about future NAAQS or future nonattainment zones, so there is a 

risk that future compliance with this rule could trigger additional emissions control 

requirements through the Title V/PSD permit program.

Greenhouse Gases: Most emissions control strategies identified by EPA during the Panel would 

increase the energy intensity of mineral wool production. Although the Panel does not have 

specific information about the GHG emissions of individual facilities in this industry, these 

facilities could be subject to GHG permitting as that program is phased in under the Tailoring 

Rule.

9.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives 

The Panel agrees that EPA does not have discretion in a number of areas that SERs commented 

upon. Specifically, the EPA does not have the discretion to set the MACT floor emission limits at 

levels suggested by the SERs. EPA must base emission limits upon information available and, in 

response to a coordinated voluntary ICR, emissions testing was conducted at mineral wool 

facilities in support of the development of this standard. 

The Panel also recognizes that EPA seeks to comply with the specific requirements for the 

development of emission standards under Section 112, including those requirements now 

generally identified as ‘Brick MACT’ issues. All processes that emit HAP and all HAP emitted 

must be appropriately identified for regulation and emission limits under this section. This 

includes the removal of inappropriate or invalid surrogate pollutant emission limits in favor of 
41

HAP-specific emission limits. In addition, EPA does not have discretion to extend the 

compliance date of the standards beyond 3 years, but States may grant an additional year if 

petitioned by a company to do so. In summary, the Panel recognizes that EPA has the authority 

to review the MACT standard for completeness, risk, and technology improvements, and that 

the Agency is currently under court order to conduct the risk and technology review for the 

mineral wool source category and propose amendments to the standard by October 31, 2011 

and promulgate the amendments by October 31, 2012.

However, whenever opportunities for regulatory flexibility arise, and when that regulatory 

flexibility can work to lessen impacts to small businesses, the Panel recommends that EPA 

propose amendments to the mineral wool MACT that offer such regulatory flexibility to the 

maximum extent possible. Specifically, these opportunities arise in the following situations:

• Selection of the averaging method in calculating the MACT floor for COS from 

cupolas and phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol emissions from collection and 

curing processes; and 

• Subcategorization of regulated processes, when appropriate. 

The results of the technology review show that new technology has been implemented in the 

mineral wool production industry, which includes the installation of RTOs on cupolas for the 

reclamation of energy from the combustion of COS and use of that reclaimed energy back into 

the cupola as a measure to reduce the consumption of coke. However, it is unclear whether 

this new technology can be considered to control air pollution as it simply converts the HAP 

COS into the criteria pollutant SO2. The Panel agrees that, in this case, add-on technology does 

not necessarily contribute to a reduction in harmful pollution. However, the Panel recognizes

that there are other control options, and therefore, the Panel recommends EPA select an 

averaging method for use in development of the MACT floor emission limits that would not 

require the installation of RTOs for compliance. 

The Panel recommends that EPA not require beyond the floor (BTF) emission limits for the 

mineral wool industry. Such limits are likely to have additional cost impacts to industry. In 

addition, EPA did not identify BTF measures for consideration and has found that the results of 

the risk assessment show acceptable risks from this source category.

The Panel recommends subcategorization of collection along the lines described in Section 3 of 

this document, specifically, subcategorization for vertical collection and curing, horizontal 

collection and curing, and drum collection and curing. Based on available information, the 

Panel believes that emission standards based on the average emission limits across both 

collection and curing processes at each of the three subcategories would minimize the burden 

on small entities while fully complying with EPA’s obligations under section 112. The Panel also 

recommends setting MACT limits for new sources equal to MACT limits for existing sources. 

Timing:

In its comment, NAIMA suggests a 7-year compliance deadline. The Panel agrees that a longer 

compliance deadline would minimize the burden on small entities, but agrees with EPA that its 
42

discretion is limited under section 112. Therefore, the Panel recommends that EPA allow the 

maximum amount of time within its discretion (3 years) and work with state permitting 

authorities to provide for the additional year permitted by the statute.

Startup, shutdown and malfunctions:

Sources may not be able to comply with emission limits that are based on a production process 

(e.g., pounds per ton of melt) when that production process is not occurring, such as during 

periods of startup and shutdown. The Panel notes that SERs did not report emissions data to 

include periods of startup or shutdown. However, the panel believes that SERs do operate 

emissions control equipment during startup and shutdown. Therefore the Panel recommends 

that EPA provide a detailed discussion in the preamble to the proposed rule that outlines the 

manner in which small entities may demonstrate compliance with the rule, when finalized,

during start-up and shutdown. The Panel also recommends that EPA propose allowing an 

affirmative defense against compliance actions for malfunction events, consistent with other 

section 112 rules recently promulgated.
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Materials Shared with Small Entity Representatives 

Appendix B: Written Comments Submitted by Small Entity Representatives 

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 1 of 133
Appendix A: Materials Shared during Outreach with Small Entity Representatives 

Materials shared prior to or at April 27, 2011 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting

Materials shared prior to or at June 16, 2011 Panel Outreach Meeting

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 2 of 133
Materials shared prior to or at April 27, 2011 Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting

• Agenda

• SER fact sheet

• List of potential SERs

• SBAR Panel process presentation

• Mineral Wool rulemaking presentation

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 3 of 133
EPA’s Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting with Potential Small Entity Representatives

Risk and Technology Review for Mineral Wool Production

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

10:00 a.m. – noon, Eastern

10:00 Welcome and Introductions 

10:15 RFA/SBREFA Overview

10:30 Background Presentation 

11:15 Discussion 

11:50 Summary and Closing 

********************************************** 

Teleconference dial-in number: (866) 299-3188 

Conference code: 202 566 2372 

Dial the toll-free teleconference number listed above. At the prompt, enter the 

conference code followed by the pound [#] sign. Note: You will hear music until the leader dials 

into the call. 

Attending the meeting in person:

This meeting will be held at EPA Headquarters in Ariel Rios North, Room 7530 at 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC. Any invited Small Entity Representative may attend 

in person if desired. 

We are unable to pay for travel expenses to Washington, DC for the meeting. 

If you would like to attend in person, you must RSVP with Madeline Barch at (202) 564-0234 or 

barch.madeline@epa.gov for directions and building access information. 

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 4 of 133
FACT SHEET

WHAT POTENTIAL 

SMALL ENTITY

REPRESENTATIVES

SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE 

SMALL BUSINESS ADVOCACY

REVIEW PANEL PROCESS

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 5 of 133
What is an EPA

Small Entity

Representative?

The Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel will ask a

selected group of Small Entity Representatives (SERs) to provide

comments on behalf of their company, community, or organization to

advise the Panel regarding a particular proposed rule. SERs’

participation in the rulemaking process will ensure that EPA hears

small entity concerns.

A SER is a person appointed by the Small Business Advocacy Chair

(SBAC) as a participating representative of small entities likely to be

subject to the requirements of a specific proposed rule under

development. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) defines small

entities as small businesses, small governments, and small nonprofit organizations.

Why does EPA

need Small Entity

Representatives?

EPA has an ongoing commitment to minimize the burden of its

regulations on small entities to the extent feasible, while still meeting

its statutory requirements. The Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), enacted in March 1996,

amended the RFA to provide small entities with an expanded

opportunity to participate in the development of certain regulations.

 

In particular, EPA must convene a SBAR Panel for certain proposed

rules under development, unless the Agency determines the rule will

not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities. Each Panel is led by the SBAC and includes federal

representatives from the Small Business Administration (SBA), the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and EPA. The Panel

meets with SERs likely to be subject to the rule to hear their views

on the potential impacts of the rule and on ways to reduce them.

Who is eligible to

be a Small Entity

Representative?

A small entity stakeholder is eligible to be a SER if he or she is 

directly subject to the particular proposed regulation that is under

development and meets one of the following definitions of small

entity listed below. Please note, however, EPA has the authority to

use an alternative definition after notice and comment, and for small

businesses, consulting with SBA.

• Small Business: Defined under Section 3 of the Small

Business Act. SBA defines “small business” variably, based on

each firm’s category in the North American Industry

Classification System. 

• Small Organization: Any not-for-profit enterprise which is

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its

field. 

• Small Governmental Jurisdiction: Governments of cities,

counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special

districts, with population of less than 50,000. 

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 6 of 133
Typically, EPA prefers the actual owners or operators of small

businesses, community officials, and non-profit organizations for this

purpose. However, a person from a trade association that

exclusively or primarily represents potentially regulated small

entities, may also serve as a SER.

Who chooses

Small Entity

Representatives?

For each rule that may have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, EPA identifies what types of

small entities are likely to be subject to the rule and works in

partnership with other Agency offices in developing a list of potential

SERs. EPA also consults with the SBA’s Chief Counsel for

Advocacy to identify individuals to serve as SERs. The SBAC

considers these recommendations and appoints a group of official

SERs.

At what stage in

the rulemaking

does the Panel

process occur?

Prior to proposing a rule, EPA engages its small entity stakeholders

in a dialog to learn more about their concerns and ideas regarding

the rule under development. If the Agency believes that the rule may

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities, EPA will begin the SBAR Panel process. This process is

intended to provide a special opportunity for small entities to

participate in the rulemaking.

What will being a

Small Entity

Representative

entail?

Generally, SERs will be asked to review background information,

listen to informational briefings and provide oral and written

comments to the Agency and later to the Panel.

 

Typically, prior to convening a Panel, EPA will provide the SERs with

some background information on the rule and ask for their initial

feedback. The Agency may also arrange a meeting with small

entities potentially subject to a particular rule to hear their initial

concerns and suggestions. Representatives of OMB and SBA are

also invited to this meeting. 

 

After the SBAR Panel is convened by the SBAC, the Panel will

provide the SERs with some additional information, followed by a

teleconference and/or a face-to-face meeting to give them the

opportunity to communicate directly with the Panel members. The

Panel also generally requests SERs’ comments in writing. The goal

of this consultation is to provide a forum for the SERs to raise issues

of concern and to provide the Panel with insight into technical issues

and potential ways of approaching them.

What will be done

with my small

entity input?

Each SBAR Panel has 60 days to consider SER comments in

addition to other rule-related materials prepared by EPA and prepare

a report to the Administrator of EPA on the potential small entity

impacts of the rule and on possible ways to reduce those impacts. 

The Panel report is considered by the Agency as it makes decisions

on the proposed rule and is made part of the official rulemaking

record with all written small entity comments appended. SERs may

also submit comments during the standard public comment period

after the publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register.

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 7 of 133
Potential Small Entity Representatives

Rulemaking for Mineral Wool Risk and Technology Review

Name   Company   City  

Lee Houlditch   Amerrock Products   Nolanville, TX  

John Dolin   Industrial Insulation Group   Phenix City, AL  

Tom Lund   Isolatek Int’l   Huntington, IN  

Christopher Bullock   Rock Wool Mfg   Leeds, AL  

Steve Edris   Thermafiber, Inc.   Wabash, IN  

Non‐SER Participant, Helper to the SERs

Name   Company   City  

Angus Crane   NAIMA (trade assn)   Alexandria, VA  

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 8 of 133
Office of the Administrator

Office of Policy

Office of Regulatory Policy and Management

http://www.epa.gov/op/orpm.html

An Overview of the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel Process

Alexander Cristofaro, Small Business Advocacy Review Chair (SBAC)

Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting, April 27, 2011

Today, I’ll answer these questions...

• What is a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 

Panel?

• How does a Panel fit into the rulemaking process?

• How do Small Entity Representatives (SERs) participate 

in the Panel process?

• What is the difference between this Pre-Panel meeting 

and the future Panel meeting?

• What does the Panel do with SER recommendations?

2

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 9 of 133
What is an SBAR Panel?

• A Panel consists of representatives from 

the: 

 agency authoring the regulation (i.e., EPA),

 Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

and

 Small Business Administration (SBA).

Title 5, section 609(b)(3), of the United States Code (USC). This is also known as section 609(b)(3) of the RFA.

3

What is an SBAR Panel? (cont’d.)

• SBREFA amended the 1980 Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), which requires 

agencies to:

“assure that small entities have been given an 

opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process”1for 

any rule “which will have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities.”2

1 5 USC 609(a)

2 5 USC 602(a)(1)

4

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 10 of 133
Panel within the rulemaking process?

“the panel shall review any material the agency has prepared..., including 

any draft proposed rule, collect advice and recommendations of each 

individual small entity representative identified by the agency after consultation 

with the Chief Counsel [for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration], on 

issues related to”1 the following:

 Who are the small entities to which the proposed rule will apply? 2

 What are the anticipated compliance requirements of the upcoming proposed 

rule? 3

 Are there any existing federal rules that may overlap or conflict with the 

regulation? 4

 Are there any significant regulatory alternatives that could minimize the impact 

on small entities? 5

5

1 5 USC 609(b)(4)

2 5 USC 603(b)(3)

3 5 USC 603(b)(4)

4 5 USC 603(b)(5)

5 5 USC 603(c)

Panel within the rulemaking process? 

(cont’d.)

Let’s focus on “any material the agency has 

prepared” 

 For this Panel, EPA will not provide a proposed rule, though we 

expect to discuss regulatory alternatives in as great a detail as 

we can.

 It is EPA’s policy to host SBAR Panels like this one well before a 

proposed rule is written so we have adequate time to 

incorporate your advice and recommendations into senior 

management decision-making about the proposed rule.

 Participation in the Panel outreach meeting does not preclude or 

take the place of participation in the normal public comment 

period at the time the rule is proposed.

6

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 11 of 133
How do SERs participate?

...Let’s focus on “collect advice and 

recommendations”

 This is how SERs help the Panel members.

• You’re expected to provide advice and recommendations on 

the materials shared today and at the future Panel outreach 

meeting.

• You will have an opportunity to submit written comments as 

well as the verbal comments you provide in the meetings.

 Those of you joining this meeting to assist the 

potential SERs are asked not to speak to allow the 

potential SERs ample time to talk.

7

How do SERs participate? (cont’d.)

• As potential SERS, you are in a unique 

position during the Pre-Panel outreach and 

Panel outreach meetings

• You have the opportunity, because of your 

status as a small entity expected to be 

regulated by this rule, to influence the 

decisions senior EPA officials make about 

the forthcoming regulation

8

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 12 of 133
Pre-Panel vs. Panel Outreach Mtg.?

• Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting

 Conducted by EPA with SBA and OMB as invitees

 Overview of the RFA, how the Panel process works, 

and the role of SERs

 Background and overview of proposed rulemaking 

• Panel Outreach Meeting

 Chaired by SBAC, but all Panel members have active 

role

 Bulk of meeting spent discussing regulatory 

alternatives and input of SERs

9

What does the Panel do 

with your recommendations?

• EPA, OMB, and SBA prepare a joint Panel 

report:

 Submitted to the EPA Administrator

 Considered during senior-management decisionmaking prior to the issuance of the proposed rule

 Placed in the rule’s docket when the proposed rule is 

published

10

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 13 of 133
Contact Information

• Contact my staff:

 Madeline Barch, RFA/SBREFA staff contact

EPA Office of Policy

202-564-0234

Barch.Madeline@epa.gov

 Lanelle Wiggins, RFA/SBREFA Team Leader

EPA Office of Policy

202-566-2372

Wiggins.Lanelle@epa.gov 

11

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 14 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

SBAR Panel Briefing:

Risk and Technology Review (RTR) 

for 

Mineral Wool Production

April 2011 Susan Fairchild

US EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Purpose & Overview

• Purpose: 

– To explain your role as a Small Entity Representative (SER) in providing 

feedback

– To provide an overview of potential changes to the MACT standards for 

Mineral Wool as a result of the statutorily-required reviews.

• Agenda: 

– SER Guidance

– Introduction to Mineral Wool

– Existing MACT standards

– Overview of the required reviews (both RTR and court-ordered)

– Potential changes due to these reviews

– Approaches Considered

– Impacts of Potential Options

– Regulatory Flexibility Options for Small Entities

– SER Questions

/2011 2

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 15 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

What is a Small Entity Representative (SER)?

• A SER is a representative of a small entity who may be 

subject to the requirements of a proposed rule that EPA has 

under development.

• SERs‟ participation in the rulemaking process helps to 

ensure that EPA hears the concerns and suggestions of 

small entities.

• The Panel (EPA, SBA, & OMB) uses your input to prepare a 

report that includes the Panel‟s recommendations on 

minimizing the burden on small entities. The report is part of 

the rulemaking record and is considered by Agency 

decisionmakers.

/7/2011 3

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

What is Mineral Wool ?

• Mineral wool is a fibrous, glassy substance made from 

natural rock, blast furnace slag, or other similar materials 

and consists of silicate fibers typically 4 to 7 micrometers in 

diameter

• Products made from mineral wool are used for thermal or 

acoustical insulation, sound control and absorbency, and fire 

protection

• 6 companies, 7 facilities, 18 production lines

– 3 bonded product lines

– 15 non-bonded product lines

• 5 of the 6 companies are Small Businesses

• All facilities are major sources of HAP emissions 

/7/2011 4

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 16 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

What are the existing MACT Standards for Mineral Wool?

• The MACT regulates some of the processes that emit hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) 

• It was promulgated on 6/01/1999, with 3-year compliance deadline (6/01/2002)

– CO, PM, and formaldehyde were used as surrogates for HAP emitted from 

regulated processes

• It reduced HAPs by 51 tons per year, and PM by 205 tpy

• MACT established at floor level of control

Cupola Existing Sources 0.10 lb PM per ton of melt

New Sources 0.10 lb PM per ton of melt 

0.10 lb CO per ton of melt, or 

Reduce uncontrolled CO emissions ≥ 99%

Curing

Oven

Existing and New Sources 0.06 lb formaldehyde per ton of melt, or

Reduce uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions ≥ 80%

/7/2011 5

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Why reevaluate the existing MACT Standards?

1. Petition for Rulemaking (Jan. 14, 2009) requests the standard to be reviewed. 

– The court vacated the Brick MACT based on a number of factors, including the 

methodology used to calculate the MACT floors, unregulated pollutants and 

processes, and unproven surrogacy relationships. 

– We call these „Brick MACT‟ issues, and we are required to address them.

– The petition identified the Mineral Wool MACT as having similar issues.

2. Risk and Technology Review Required by the Clean Air Act and compelled by a 

court ordered deadline. 

3. We are making all these revisions at one time to 

1. Conserve resources 

2. Avoid making two consecutive changes to the MACT. That could impose additional 

controls under a second amendment that would cost industry more than if all 

amendments are done together in one rulemaking

/7/2011 6

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 17 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

What is an RTR?

• The Clean Air Act requires EPA to evaluate the risk remaining within 8 

years after implementation of the MACT standards. We call this a risk 

review.

• The act also requires us to review the industry for new technological 

developments that may reduce HAP beyond MACT. We call this the 

technology review.

• EPA is conducting these 2 reviews together under the Risk and 

Technology Review, or RTR program.

– We consider costs in both the risk and the technology reviews.

• The RTR will be reflected as amendments to the MACT standard. 

• We‟re late on these reviews, and are under a court ordered deadline to 

repropose the Mineral Wool RTR by October 31, 2011. 

/7/2011 7

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Why Repropose the Mineral Wool RTR?

• The RTR for Mineral Wool was proposed in 2008, but ...

– It was based on insufficient data (NEI) to support a conclusion of no 

risk

– The one (test) data point that was used to estimate industry 

emissions came from a facility that closed down during development 

of the proposed rule

– We received no comment after proposal that provided additional data 

on which to support a no risk conclusion

– It did not address either “Brick MACT” issues or the startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction vacature.

• We made the decision to repropose using emission test data

• The industry collected their data and conducted emission tests to 

support the reproposal in lieu of a formal Section 114

/7/2011 8

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 18 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

What is Involved in the Technology Review?

• The Act requires that we review the MACT standard every 8 years to 

consider advances in practices, processes and control technologies

• This allows us to tighten existing MACT standards with cost-effective 

controls

• As we conduct the Technology Review, we also 

assess MACT to:

– Address unregulated emission points

– Require consistent monitoring and add electronic compliance 

reporting

– Fix administrative requirements that are duplicative or 

inconsistent

/7/2011 9

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

What is involved in the additional reviews required by the courts? 

Two Court decisions obligate EPA to review MACT standards to:

1) Determine if EPA set deficient MACT standards (Brick MACT issues)

a. Review MACT floor calculations

b. Review surrogacy relationships

c. Set emission limits for all HAP-emitting processes 

2) Set Startup and Shutdown requirements because the applicable 

provisions were in the vacated General Provisions. 

/7/2011 10

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 19 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

How do the Risk, Technology and MACT Reviews Interact?

• For both residual risk and technology reviews, we evaluate control 

options

– Risk is evaluated by both the toxicity of pollutants and the proximity 

of the facility to the nearest person.

– Technology is evaluated by new controls and systems in the 

industry

• In most cases, we have flexibility in how we revise MACT standards

• An example: Actual vs. Allowable Emissions

– Actual emissions levels being achieved by the facilities and are 

measured. Allowable emissions are the amount allowed to be 

emitted in the company‟s Title V permit.

– If „actuals‟ are much less than „allowables‟, EPA could reduce the 

level allowed down to the level being achieved by the facilities

• This typically is a low cost way to reduce potential risks

• After evaluating control options for both reviews (often the same 

options), we choose options that are cost-effective and reduce risks the 

most.

/7/2011 11

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

For example....

• There is no existing source emission limit in the MACT for COS. This is 

a „Brick MACT‟ issue and we‟re required to fix it.

– We have reviewed the ICR data to see what controls exist now for COS reduction

• The risk of exposure to COS emissions from the mineral wool industry 

will also be assessed.

• These reviews inform one another because the control technologies that 

reduce COS emissions also reduce risk from exposure to COS

• Most of the industry currently incinerates COS from the cupola emissions 

even though that is not required under the MACT rule. 

– This is sufficient to develop a MACT floor for COS

– Because most facilities already do this, it is not an additional cost for these

– The cost to control COS under this rule would be incurred at 4 cupolas

– If one of these 4 cupolas also feeds into a bonded product line, the incinerator at the 

curing oven could be used for COS incineration as well 

/7/2011 12

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 20 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Brick MACT Issue: MACT Floor for Formaldehyde

• We must determine if the MACT floor emission limit was 

calculated correctly for formaldehyde, and amend MACT if 

needed.

– Because formaldehyde is only emitted from bonded product lines, 

any changes to the MACT would only affect the 3 product lines that 

use a curing oven to cure their bonded products

7/2011 13

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Brick MACT Issue: Surrogacy Relationships

• We were petitioned on the use of unproven surrogates for certain HAPs. We 

have 3 options to address this issue

1. We can establish surrogacy relationships:

a. CO as a surrogate for COS

b. Formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol

c. Formaldehyde as a surrogate for methanol

2. Or we could use a different surrogate as long as we validate the relationship

– THC could be used as a surrogate for all organic HAPs

3. Or we can establish HAP-specific emission limits.

• We can address this issue using a combination of the above options

• Method 318 was developed for Mineral Wool MACT and tests for phenol, 

methanol, formaldehyde and COS. A new test method may not be needed.

/7/2011 14

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 21 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Brick MACT Issue: MACT Floor for Unregulated Processes

• Fiber Collection and Cooling were not regulated under MACT, and we must set 

the MACT for these processes 

• Although collection and cooling occur at all mineral wool lines, only the 3 lines 

with a curing oven incur a brick MACT issue (because these are the only lines 

with formaldehyde)

• Cooling of the bonded product after it is cured in the oven emits organic HAP

– The emission limit for these HAP will be based on the MACT floor control

– One of the three bonded lines control collection and cooling using the curing 

oven incinerator

• Routing organic HAP emissions from these processes through the incinerator 

controlling the curing oven may be a low-cost option for the remaining 2 

uncontrolled collection and cooling lines

/7/2011 15

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Brick MACT Issue: MACT for Unregulated Pollutants

• Only new cupolas have a COS emission limit under the MACT standard

• Existing cupolas are unregulated for COS, even though we know they 

emit COS

• Therefore, we are required to determine the MACT floor emission limit for 

COS for existing sources

/7/2011 16

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 22 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Other Potential Changes to the MACT

• Startup and Shutdown requirements may change due to GP vacature

• Performance test requirements could change to reflect any new pollutant 

emission limits and any increase in the frequency of performance testing

• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements could change to reflect any 

new requirements

/7/2011 17

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Impacts of Potential Options

IF... THEN... POTENTIAL IMPACTS...

We require COS emission 

limit at cupolas at the level 

achieved by incineration. 

4 uncontrolled cupolas will have to either 

duct cupola exhaust through an existing 

incinerator, or install a new incinerator

COS will be reduced further

SO2 emissions will increase

Costs: Existing incinerator- new ductwork 

design and pressure balance of the system

New incinerator- design and installation

We require control of organic 

HAP from collection and / or 

cooling. 

The 2 existing uncontrolled bonded lines 

will have to reduce organic HAP to meet 

the MACT floor

Companies may change their formulation 

of binder to exclude organic HAP

Cost: new ductwork design and pressure 

balance of the system

R & D costs for reformulation of binder

Research Question: The

formaldehyde /phenolmethanol surrogacy is invalid

Our first choice is to establish THC as a 

surrogate for all organic HAP

Emissions limits that are specific to each 

HAP could be established (2nd choice)

Parameter monitoring would likely still be 

required- not a change from MACT

Parameter monitoring would likely still be 

required. 

Research Question: We 

validate the CO/COS 

surrogacy relationship

The monitoring requirements for new 

cupolas will apply to existing cupolas

Parameter (incinerator) monitoring 

required at incinerators

Research Question: We can 

not validate the CO/COS 

surrogacy

We will remove the CO limit from the 

MACT rule and insert instead a COS 

emission limit for existing cupolas

Parameter monitoring will likely still be 

used. MACT will reflect the COS level 

achieved by an incinerator

/7/2011 18

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 23 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Pros and Cons of Potential MACT Floor Changes

Change Pros Cons

The floor for COS at existing cupolas 

is the average of the best performing 

5 cupolas.

1-Sources may be able to use existing 

incinerators to comply

1-when COS is incinerated, it forms 

SO2.

2- So a solution to a toxics problem 

creates a potential criteria program 

problem1. 

MACT for organics from collection at 

bonded product lines is added to the 

rule.

1-Sec 112 does not define how the 

MACT is calculated for fewer than 5 

sources

1-New incinerator is likely to be 

costly

MACT for organics from cooling at

bonded product lines is added to the 

rule

1-Sec 112 does not define how the MACT 

is calculated for fewer than 5 sources

2-Emission limit can be based on current 

level achieved

3-All bonded product lines have low 

organic emissions because most are 

driven off at curing stage.

1-Does not reduce risk

The MACT floor for formaldehyde is 

tightened to lower limits

1-Facilities can likely meet lower emission 

limits now (actual formaldehyde emissions 

are much lower than the level allowed 

under MACT)

2-A lower emission limit can also be met 

by higher temp of incineration

1-Cost of fuel if incinerator temp is 

increased to meet limit

/7/2011 19

1 We are concerned about the potential health impact of this issue and are working toward a resolution.

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

What are some critical factors in the Mineral Wool RTR?

• Timing of Risk Review

– We expect risk modeling to be complete this month. 

– The results of the risk modeling will show us what exposures to pollutants 

MUST be reduced to reduce risks. 

• Risk Review Results

– Risk is a factor of the both the toxicity of a substance AND the exposure 

potential 

• Technology Review

– Under 112(d), we must review new technology within the industry within 8 

years of MACT, regardless of the rulemaking petition. Because we‟re late on 

this review, we are under a court-ordered deadline.

– The MACT amendments will be based on the new industry information

/7/2011 20

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 24 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

How can EPA ease impacts to industry?

• Depending on whether the changes are a result of the risk 

review or technology review, there are different compliance 

schedules. 

• Subcategorization of sources may be appropriate, based on 

new data. 

• If additional emission reductions are needed to reduce risk, 

that doesn‟t necessarily mean additional add-on controls will 

be required

• These opportunities, when present, will be considered when 

we develop the RTR rules. 

/7/2011 21

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

How can EPA ease impacts to industry?

Compliance schedules

• Under section 112(f) standards developed (i.e., to address Residual Risks, 

high risks, etc..), facilities have 90 days to comply with the standard

– This can be extended by the permit writer up to 2 years for existing sources to comply with 

112(f) standards if that extra time is needed to install controls, etc.... 

• On the other hand, if we promulgate standards under a technology review 

112(d)(3) (i.e., MACT), 112(d)(6) or under 112(h) (i.e., Work Practice 

standards) , we can provide up to 3 years for existing facilities to comply. 

• Therefore, if a rule revision is clearly "risk" based, the max time we can allow 

for compliance is up to 2 years, but 

• If we can justify that a revision is based on Control Technologies, we can 

provide up to 3 years, which may be preferable in some cases (e.g., sources 

need more than 2 years to install the controls, etc.). 

• We consider these differences as we develop the RTR rules. 

/7/2011 22

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 25 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

How can EPA ease impacts to industry?

Subcategorization

• We may “distinguish among classes, types and sizes of sources within a 

category or subcategory in establishing” MACT standards (112(d)(1))

• So if there are fundamental differences among processes in an industry, 

we can subcategorize among them.

• Some examples of subcategorization we‟ve used in other rules:

– Reverberatory furnace vs. electric arc furnace

– Clay refractory vs. non-clay refractory

• We may also subcategorize according to 

– Raw material source (although industry could choose different raw 

materials to reduce their emissions)

/7/2011 23

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

How can EPA ease impacts to industry?

to Reduce Risk

• Because some good routine business practices conserve resources and limit 

loss of material, EPA can use them in the rule as a low or no-cost option as 

HAP reduction measures to reduce risk. 

• Examples include:

– Mist spraying of dry toxic raw materials at piles, storage, or inlet of melting 

processes (glass plants). These measures are already used at various 

industries to prevent emissions of toxics and loss of raw material. 

– Covers, spill guards, curved tank walls to prevent release of toxic fumes 

(from electroplating baths)

/7/2011 24

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 26 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Appendix

• Questions for SERs

• Mineral Wool Project Schedule

• List of Affected Entities

/7/2011 25

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Questions for SERs

• What do you spend in MACT compliance costs ?

– Some cupolas are controlled with an incinerator following the 

baghouse (only PM control was required for existing cupolas under 

the MACT.) What do you spend annually to operate the incinerator? 

– Some cupolas also have flue gas desulfurization following the 

incinerator to remove the SO2 that‟s formed by the combustion of 

COS. What are your costs to operate desulfurization? 

– What are the costs you incur as a result of MACT recordkeeping?

• What opportunities for flexibility do you have in MACT compliance?

• What aspects of your process limit the amount of formaldehyde that can 

be sprayed at the collection and binder application stage?

/7/2011 26

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 27 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Questions for SERs (cont‟d)

• EPA must review the MACT floor for the Mineral Wool industry and 

determine whether it was set at the correct level (i.e., that MACT for 

formaldehyde from curing ovens does not need to change). 

• To help us do this:

– How did the emissions of formaldehyde change from pre-MACT 

levels to after the MACT was promulgated in 1999?

– Do you have any test reports for curing ovens from the preMACT time period that show those levels?

• To what extent are production processes customized to achieve a 

marketable product?

/7/2011 27

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Questions for SERs (cont‟d)

• Carbonyl sulfide (COS) is highly flammable and is released at very high levels 

(avg. 70 tpy) from the cupola. We are looking at measures that would be 

effective in reducing COS. Has anyone considered rerouting the exhaust gases 

back through the cupola to reclaim waste energy and to destroy COS? 

• Are any cupolas enclosed, with fumes vented to the control device(s)?

• The constituents of the raw materials fed into cupolas factor into the cupola 

emissions. We are trying to understand the stoichiometry of the COS and SO2 

relationship from the cupola, and how that can be resolved. To that end:

– From what industries are your slags purchased?

– Is testing of the slag performed prior to sale to determine metals or sulfur 

content?

– Do you choose your coke supplier according to the coke preparation or it‟s 

sulfur content?

• Have you changed your raw materials to change the cupola emissions, and what 

were the results of those changes?

– Please include changes even if they did not yield the result you wanted.

/7/2011 28

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 28 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Questions for SERs (cont‟d)

• Are there other Federal rules that overlap with the Mineral Wool 

MACT?

– If so, do any of the associated compliance requirements overlap or 

contradict one another? For instance, do you have to report the 

same information in different units of measurement, or on different 

reporting frequencies?

– If so, what reporting frequency, units, or other requirements of the 

reporting do you suggest to align overlapping Federal rules?

– Does your manufacturing and operating equipment produce an 

electronic report or similar output that could be used to replace 

existing Federal reporting requirements?

• Are you aware of other means of easing / streamlining existing Federal 

rule requirements ?

/7/2011 29

Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Mineral Wool Production Project Schedule

• Voluntary ICR sent out (May 2010)

• ICR & test data still coming in (Feb 2011)

• Complete data entry and QA review (Feb 2011)

• Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting (April 2011)

• Convene SBAR Panel (May 2011)

• Panel Outreach Meeting (June 2011)

• Panel Concludes (July 2011)

• Administrator signature (October 2011)

/7/2011 30

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 29 of 133
Internal Draft EPA document. Do not quote or cite.

Mineral Wool Production Stakeholders

Name Company City # Employees

Angus Crane NAIMA (trade assn) Alexandria, VA --

Lee Houlditch Amerrock Products Nolanville, TX 33

Christopher Bullock Industrial Insulation Group Phenix City, AL 130

Tom Lund Isolatek Int‟l Huntington, IN ~200

Tim Scott Rock Wool Mfg Leeds, AL 47

Steve Edris Thermafiber, Inc. Wabash, IN 130

John Bolden USG Interiors* Chicago, IL >1,000

/7/2011 31

* USG is the only company in the industry that is not a small business. They operate 2 plants in Walworth, WI ,and in Redwing, MN. 

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 30 of 133
Materials shared prior to or at June 16, 2011 Panel Outreach Meeting

• Agenda

• SBAR Panel process refresher presentation

• Mineral Wool rulemaking information update presentation

• North American Insulation Manufacturers Association presentation

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 31 of 133
Panel Outreach Meeting with Potential Small Entity Representatives (SERs) 

for the rulemaking 

Risk and Technology Review for Mineral Wool Production 

Date: Thursday, 06/16/2011 

Time: 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (Eastern) 

RSVP: Please RSVP by 06/14/2011 with Madeline Barch at Barch.Madeline@epa.gov or (202) 

564.0234. Note whether you’re attending by conference call or in person. 

Location: For those people attending in person:

 Room 1426, EPA West 

1301 Constitution Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

 Non-EPA attendees: 

o Any invited SER may attend in person if desired. 

o If you would like to attend in person, you must RSVP for directions and 

building access information. 

OR 

For those people joining by conference call: 

 1-866-299-3188, access code 2025662372 

 At the prompt, enter the conference code followed by the pound [#] sign. Note: 

You will hear music until the leader dials into the call. 

Agenda 

10:00 Welcome and Introductions 

10:20 Presentation on the Rulemaking 

- Susan Fairchild, EPA. 

10:50 Discussion 

- Angus Crane, NAIMA, will begin the discussion. 

11:50 Summary and Closing 

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 32 of 133
Office of the Administrator

Office of Policy

Office of Regulatory Policy and Management

http://www.epa.gov/op/orpm.html

A Refresher on the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel Process

Alexander Cristofaro, Small Business Advocacy Review Chair (SBAC)

Panel Outreach Meeting, June 16, 2011

Today’s Topics

• What is a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 

Panel?

• Your role as a Small Entity Representative (SER)

• The difference between an SBAR Panel and a proposed 

regulation

2

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 33 of 133
What is an SBAR Panel?

• A Panel consists of representatives from the: 

 Agency authoring the regulation (i.e., EPA)

 OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

 SBA’s Office of Advocacy

• The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) instructs the Panel 

to:

 Review “any material the agency has prepared” related to the 

development of the regulation

 Collect advice and recommendations from SERs

 Prepare a report within 60 days of the Panel convening

See Title 5, section 609(b)(3)-(5), of the United States Code (USC). This is also known as section 609(b)(3)-(5) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).

3

What is an SBAR Panel? (cont’d.)

• The types of materials the Panel will review and on which you, the SERs, 

will provide advice and recommendations are specified by law

• Section 609(b)(4) of the RFA states that “the panel shall review any 

material the agency has prepared...on issues related to”:

 “a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities 

to which the proposed rule will apply” (Sec. 603(b)(3))

 “a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance 

requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small 

entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional 

skills necessary for preparation of the report or record” (Sec. 603(b)(4))

 “an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which 

may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule” (Sec. 603(b)(5))

 “a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which 

accomplish the stated objective of applicable statutes and which minimize any 

significant economic impact ...on small entities” (Sec. 603(c))

4

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 34 of 133
Your role as a SER

• EPA values this SBAR Panel process because it provides us with 

important small entity perspectives and information

• Your verbal and written input is considered and valued by the Panel 

as the Panel develops the Panel report

• Copies of your written comments will be appended to the Panel 

Report and a chapter in the Panel report will summarize them.

• The Panel will consider the comments you provide to us, but the 

findings that ultimately appear in the report are those of the Panel 

members: EPA, OMB, and SBA

• The Administrator will carefully consider the input we gather from 

the SERs and the Panel members, but is not legally bound to adopt 

the recommendations of the Panel

5

The difference between an SBAR Panel 

and a proposed regulation

• SBAR Panel

 Reviews materials related to:

• the impacts of the regulation on small entities

• Federal rules which may intersect with this proposed regulation

• Alternatives to the regulation that may minimize small entity 

impacts

 EPA uses the Panel report to inform our decision-making about 

the forthcoming proposed regulation

• Proposed regulation

 Fully formed regulatory proposal or set of regulatory alternatives

 You will have an opportunity to comment on the proposal, just 

like any other public citizen

6

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 35 of 133
Thank You

• Participation is voluntary and we appreciate the time and 

energy you put towards this rulemaking.

• Thank you - we know it is, and has been, an intense 

resource commitment.

• Contact my staff:

 Madeline Barch, RFA/SBREFA staff contact

EPA Office of Policy

202-564-0234 

Barch.Madeline@epa.gov 

 Lanelle Wiggins, RFA/SBREFA Team Leader

EPA Office of Policy

202-566-2372

Wiggins.Lanelle@epa.gov 

7

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 36 of 133
Mineral Wool Information Update

Addendum to the April 2011 

SBAR Panel Briefing

May 2011

Review

• 13 Production Lines fed by 11 cupolas

– Cupolas are regulated for PM as a surrogate for metals

– They also emit COS and acid gases, for which there is 

no MACT standard

• 3 of the 13 production lines also operate a curing 

oven

– Curing ovens are currently regulated for 

formaldehyde. That limit is used as a surrogate for 

phenol and methanol.

– The collection process emits HAP but is not currently 

regulated under MACT

/ϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 2

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 37 of 133
Preliminary Risk Assessment Results

ςͬϭς/2011

Result HAP Drivers

Number of Facilities Estimated to be in Source Category 7 N/A

Maximum Individual Lifetime Cancer Risk (in 1 million) 4 formaldehyde

Maximum Hazard Index 0.04 formaldehyde

Maximum Acute Hazard Quotient [scaling factor = 3] 9

0.6

formaldehyde (REL)

formaldehyde (AEGL-1, ERPG-1))

Number of Facilities With Potential for Acute Effects 1 formaldehyde

Number of People Living Within 50 Kilometers of Facilities 

Modeled 3,700,000 n/a

Greater than or equal to 1 in 1 million 1,650 n/a

Estimated Cancer Incidence (excess cancer cases per year) 0.0004 n/a

Formaldehyde Contribution to Cancer Incidence: 64%

Arsenic compounds Contribution to Cancer Incidence: 33% n/a

DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 3

Preliminary Risk Conclusions

• The risks due to the mineral wool industry are low, and do not compel us 

to amend the MACT based on risk alone

• The default acute factor is 10X; the acute factor we used here is 3, and is 

based on industry supplied data.

• The risk review included all processes and emissions from testing results

• The risk (4 in one million) is due to emissions of arsenic and formaldehyde 

at cupolas and collection, respectively. 

• One facility is driving the risk (formaldehyde from collection). 

• Collection is a Brick MACT issue and will be addressed under those 

revisions.

• After the risk from collection is addressed, our risk review on the mineral 

wool industry will be concluded 

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 4

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 38 of 133
Amendments Driver

• Brick MACT issues are driving the changes to 

the standard

– Missing floors for pollutants and / or processes

– Surrogacy changes

– Startup and Shutdown provisions

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 5

Status of MACT Floor Development

• The emission limit work is PRELIMINARY and the numbers are 

DRAFT

• All information is pre-decisional. EPA has NOT made conclusions or 

decisions on the emission limits, and have expressed some as 

ranges. 

• The creation of SO2from COS incineration is a major issue.

– Prolonged exposure to SO2 has potential severe health effects. 

– PSD and NSR programs would have impacts

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 6

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 39 of 133
Plans to Determine Validity of the MACT Floor

– We plan to review the docket, the preamble to the 

proposal, supplementary proposal, final rule and industry 

data to determine the validity of the MACT floor as 

promulgated in 1999.

– From materials we’ve reviewed so far, we have not found 

reason to believe the MACT floors were invalid for the 

processes and pollutants it covered; nevertheless we must 

satisfy the court on this point

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 7

Summary of Potential Changes and Impacts

Pollutant

COS PM (for HAP metals)Formaldehyde Phenol Methanol HF/HCl

Cupolas

New

Current CO 

standard 

revised to 

COS 

standard

0.02-0.05

No change 

expected

New MACT 

standard 

(expected low 

impact)

9.63 e-3 to 

1.36e-2

Existing

New MACT 

standard

Possible: 

0.05 

Curing

New

No change 

expected

New MACT 

standard 

(expected low 

impact)

7.62e-5 to 4 e -4

New MACT 

standard 

(expected low 

impact) 1.57e-4 to 

4.74 e-4

Existing

Collection

New New MACT 

Standard. 

Possible range: 

0.31-1.01 

New MACT 

standard. Possible 

range:

6.8e-3 to 0.15 

New MACT 

standard. Possible 

range: 

4.1e-3 to 2.17e-2 

Existing

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 8

All numerical standards are expressed in units of lbs. pollutant per ton melt 

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 40 of 133
Plans for Emission Limit Reviews

• We do not anticipate changes to be made to the existing and new cupola PM 

emission limits 

• We plan to keep the PM limit as a surrogate for metals 

• Changes will likely be made to the MACT floors to reflect changes in surrogacy 

• CO: COS

• Formaldehyde: phenol

• Formaldehyde: methanol

• These changes are unlikely to result in a more stringent standard because we 

intend to use existing data to establish the HAP-specific emission limits currently 

reflected by compliance with the MACT 

• MACT floor for phenol and methanol can be established based on testing and the 

compliant formaldehyde limits

• We plan to determine the floor levels for each pollutant at MACT compliant levels based 

on the emissions testing conducted under the ICR

• Emission Limits will be added for pollutants and processes that were not regulated 

under MACT. We will use the UPL approach as appropriate:

• Emission limits will be added to the standard for COS from existing cupolas

• Emission limits may be for the first time added to the standard for HF and HCl from 

existing and new cupolas

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 9

UPL Can be Used to Develop Emission Limits

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite.

• UPL = XT +t(p,df) x S2(1/n + 1/m)

• XT = the average of the best performing existing sources;

• t(p,df)= the t statistic for a confidence level p, and df degrees of freedom;

• S

2

= the pooled variance;

• n = the number of test runs (all sources) USED IN THE ANALYSIS; AND

• m = the number of (future) compliance test runs (for run-by-run data m=3)

10

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 41 of 133
MACT Floor Using the UPL

• Using the UPL to determine a MACT floor:

– If the UPL is used to determine the new MACT floors, the 99% confidence level UPL represents the 

value below which the average value from a compliance test would fall 99 % of the time

– Depending on the data, we elaborate on this equation in order to account for number of runs, 

skewness, variability, etc.

– The equation takes into account many factors (including variability) and adds a ‘cushion’ in order to 

account for these factors. The amount of ‘cushion’ it adds depends upon the data itself. In general, 

the fewer data points and/or the broader the range of the data points, the more ‘variability’ that is 

reflected in the UPL.

– However, few data points may not show extreme variability if the data are close

• The UPL may not be the best approach if...

– ...the data are few, and if some are unreliable, the variability may not be dependable within a 

reasonable confidence level

– ...the calculated UPL is much higher or much lower than an existing MACT for sources shown to be in 

compliance with the MACT

– ...the data show an abnormal distribution which can not be normalized

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 11

Preliminary Emission Limit Work*

• We may establish a COS emission limit 

for existing cupolas

– Based on the best 5 controlled 

sources, which incinerate COS

– Testing shows these achieve 0.02 lb 

COS /ton melt emission limit

– UPL calculates 0.05, considering 

variability

– This level corresponds to 0.35 lb CO 

/ton melt

• This approach is not without it’s 

problems: incineration of COS creates 

SO2. 

• We are evaluating the secondary 

pollutant issues as well as the data

• We may establish MACT for new 

and existing collection processes

• The DRAFT limit takes variability 

and normality into account 

• Because of the limited data and 

uncertainties associated with the 

data, a potential formaldehyde 

limit could be in the range 

between 0.5-1.01 lb/ton melt

• Limits outside this range are 

possible

* Different approaches to developing the 

MACT floor for fewer than 5 sources are 

possible. These data reflect one approach 

only. 

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 12

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 42 of 133
Relative Cost of Potential Changes 

Changes ExpectedNo / Low Cost

• HAP-specific 

Emission limits (COS, 

Phenol, Methanol, 

Formaldehyde) 

replacing surrogacy

• New Emission limits 

for HF, HCl from 

existing and new 

cupolas

Changes Expected –

Cost

• MACT floor for 

COS from 

existing cupolas 

(5 affected sources)

• MACT floor for 

organics from 

collection (1 

affected source)

No Changes Expected

• PM limit as a 

surrogate for metal 

HAP

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 13

What are the Cost Drivers?

• Testing Costs

• Ducting newly 

regulated emissions 

to existing control 

devices

• Cost of control for COS 

from existing cupolas

• Cost of control for 

formaldehyde, phenol, 

methanol from 

collection 

LOWER 

COSTS

HIGHER (DRIVER) 

COSTS

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 14

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 43 of 133
Measurement and Monitoring Plans

• Formaldehyde, methanol, phenol and COS will be measured using M318, 

the method in the rule that was developed specifically for this industry.

• HF and HCl would be measured using FTIR (also M316). 

• Alternative methods to measure pollutants can be used if they are valid, 

submitted to EPA for review, and approved by EPA for this purpose.

• We plan to continue parameter monitoring of processes and controls to 

show compliance with the standard.

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 15

Compliance Deadlines

• Because the amendments will be made under 

112(d)(3) (MACT standards for new and 

existing sources) the compliance deadlines 

can be up to 3 years from promulgation, with 

a possible extension of 1 additional year for 

installation of air pollution control equipment

• This is approximately 5 years from now

ςͬϭς/2011 DELIBERATIVE Internal Draft EPA 

document. Do not quote or cite. 16

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 44 of 133
Appendix B: Written Comments Submitted by Small Entity Representatives

Comments Received from potential SERs following the April 27, 2011 Pre-Panel Outreach 

Meeting

Comments Received from SERs following the June 16, 2011 Panel Outreach Meeting

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 45 of 133
Comments Received from potential SERs following the April 27, 2011 Pre-Panel Outreach 

Meeting

• Angus Crane, North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 46 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 47 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 48 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 49 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 50 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 51 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 52 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 53 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 54 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 55 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 56 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 57 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 58 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 59 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 60 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 61 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 62 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 63 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 64 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 65 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 66 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 67 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 68 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 69 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 70 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 71 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 72 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 73 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 74 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 75 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 76 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 77 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 78 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 79 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 80 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 81 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 82 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 83 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 84 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 85 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 86 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 87 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 88 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 89 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 90 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 91 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 92 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 93 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 94 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 95 of 133
Comments Received from SERs following the June 16, 2011 Panel Outreach Meeting

• Lee Houlditch, Amerrock Products

• Tom Lund, Isolatek International

• Angus Crane, NAIMA

• Timothy Scott, Rock Wool Manufacturing

• Steve Edris, Thermafiber, Inc.

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 96 of 133
PRODUCING PRODUCTS WITH THE ENVIRONMENT IN MIND...

June 30,2011

Sent Via Email

Ms Madeline Barch

Office of Policy

Regulatory Management Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Asencv

Washington, D.C .20460

Re: Mineral Wool SBAR Panel - Proposed Environmental Regulation Changes

Dear Ms. Barch:

I am writing this letter to make additional comments to those I made in the June 15,201 1 SBAR

Panel meeting regarding the potential effects the proposed changes in environmental regulations

will have on the Amerrock plant located in Nolanville, Texas. I am also doing this to provide

some of the history and additional information regarding the plant and the plant operations and

the severe economic conditions we have been and are currently facing.

I have been involved with the mineral wool industry for over 30 years. During my career I have

worked for several of the mineral wool companies. While I was President of Sloss Industries,

the company had two mineral wool plants. both of which are now shut down and decommissioned. While President of Thermafiber, the company operated four mineral wool plants

and owned another that had been shut down before I joined the company.While I was with

Thermafiber the company shut down two of the plants. With flnancing help from Thermafiber,

some personal funds, and some significant bank financing I was able to acquire the other plant

located in Nolanville, Texas tn2006, which now operates as Amerrock Products, LP.

One of the main reasons Iwanted to acquire the plant in Texas was the fact that I know from

many years in the industry that mineral wool is a unique product with a combination of superior

thermal, acoustical, and fire proofing qualities that are not available from any other insulation

material. Also, having been involved in NAIMA I am very aware of the significant health studies

that the industry sponsored through NAIMA over many years to ensure that the product does not

impose adverse health effects for plant workers or those installing the products.

Amerrock Products

440 Jackrabbit Rd.

Nolanville. l'X 76559

(205) 5 t6-9164

lhou lditch(@amerrock. com

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report

\\'ww. amerrock.com

page 97 of 133
Another rason r rert :::?:::#':::;:,::;{:{:'ffif#ii:W:ff#^Jffli; ,n. tsseMACr had

been promulgated and knowing that the plant operations are efficient, the plant performs stack

testing every year, the plant has an emission stack that is 195 feet high, and the plant produces

only loose fiber so there are no binders involved, I believed that the residual risk review would

result with a finding of minimal risk and no additional controls would be necessary.

The Amerrock plant is the only plant in the United States producing loose rock wool for the

residential insulation market. When I acquired the plant in January 2006 the home construction

market was robust and the plant operated 5-6 days per week. At the time I acquired the plant I

anticipated that there would be a downturn in housing starts due to the long upward cycle the

market had experienced. I factored in a 20% downturn where in actuality we have experienced

an almostT0% downturn. The plant has operated at a loss for 3 Yzyears with the loss in 2010

exceeding $ i million. The company has been placed in the special assets division of the bank

carrying the note and the company credit line has been frozen leaving the company with no

ability to borrow any funds.

And as I mentioned in my comments at the SBAR meeting, if an incinerator were required there

is not a natural gas line in the vicinity of the pant and I don't know that there are other viable

options for incineration. In actuality this is merely academic because if new regulations require a

capital investment of any magnitude the company will have to close resulting in the loss of 33

jobs and the possibility that there will no longer be an insulation product that brings to the

market the superior attributes of rock wool.

I respectfully plead that you consider the impact that new regulations will have on the mineral

wool industry and this company in particular.

Sincerelv:

,(--

Lee Hou

Additional copies sent

Cristofaro; Ms. Susan

via email

Fairchild

to: Mr. David Rostker; Ms. Cortney Higgins; Mr. Alex

Amerrock Products

440 .lackrabbit Rd.

Nolanville. l'X 76559

(20s) s t 6 - 9 t 6 4

lhoulditch@amerrock. co m

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report

www.amerrock.com

page 98 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 99 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 100 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 101 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 102 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 103 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 104 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 105 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 106 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 107 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 108 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 109 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 110 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 111 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 112 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 113 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 114 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 115 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 116 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 117 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 118 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 119 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 120 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 121 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 122 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 123 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 124 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 125 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 126 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 127 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 128 of 133
Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 129 of 133
3711 Mill Street, Wabash, IN, USA 46992-7778

Phone: 260-563-2111 • Fax: 260-563-8979

www.thermafiber.com 

VIA EMAIL

June 30, 2011 

Ms. Madeline Barch 

Office of Policy 

Regulatory Management Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building, Mail Code: 1806A 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

RE: SBAR Panel – Economic Impact of Draft Proposed Regulation Changes to Thermafiber

Dear Ms. Barch: 

Thank you again for allowing me to speak at the June 16, 2011 SBAR Panel meeting and to convey my 

concern regarding the draft proposed regulation changes recently presented to us by EPA. This letter 

expands upon my presentation and provides more details specific to Thermafiber with regards to the 

financial burden that will increase as we attempt to meet the proposed emission limits. 

Thermafiber, the company, was formed in 1996 when the assets of three mineral wool plants (i.e. 

Wabash, IN; Birmingham, AL; and Tacoma, WA) were sold from USG Interiors, Inc. to private investors. 

This was done in advance of the original MACT promulgation in 1999. The Birmingham plant closed in 

2000 and the Tacoma plant closed in 2002. Only the Wabash plant remains in operation and has been 

since its original start date in 1935. 

Four private equity groups have owned Thermafiber within the last 15 years. From 1998 until 2002, 

Thermafiber operated in conjunction with American Rockwool, Inc., a privately held company with 

mineral wool plants in Spring Hope, NC and Nolanville, TX. The Spring Hope plant was closed in 2002 

and eventually the property was sold in 2009. The Nolanville plant was sold in 2005 and became 

Amerrock Products. Needless to say, navigating these changes and downsizings has been challenging. 

In 2009 and 2010, gross sales for Thermafiber were $38.6 and $39.4 million. After 5 months 2011, gross 

sales sit at $18.6 million for an annualized projection of $46.1 million. The gain in sales can be largely 

attributed to two mineral wool competitors ceasing operations. Walter Fiber (formerly Sloss of 

Birmingham, AL) closed in 2009. Fibrex Insulations of Sarnia, Ontario closed in January 2011. 

Once freight and sales adjustments have been factored out, net sales for the prior two years were $$33.5 

and $34.4 million. Net sales are projected to be $39.8 million for 2011. 

Profitability has been dramatically impacted with the drastic decline in insulation demand and the steep 

increases in raw materials and fuel. As a percent of net sales, gross margin for the company declined 

from 27.8% to 20.5% from 2009 to 2010 and currently sits at 17.9%. Net income declined from 1.9% to 

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 130 of 133
3711 Mill Street, Wabash, IN, USA 46992-7778

Phone: 260-563-2111 • Fax: 260-563-8979

www.thermafiber.com 

(1.4%) from 2009 to 2010 and currently sits at (3.2%). This means the projected net income for 2011 will 

be ($1.25 million). Steps continue to be made to regain profitability in a down economy with material 

costs trending upward and fierce competition vying for any available business. 

Over the last 10 years, Thermafiber has invested more than $10 million to comply with new regulations 

and to curb emissions. Several thousand tons of pollutants each year have been reduced as a result of 

these improvements. Most recently in 2009, Thermafiber invested over $5 million to install incinerators 

on each of the two cupolas. Special waivers from our existing lenders to spend more than 5 times the 

annual capital investment limit for the whole company as spelled out in loan documents had to be 

secured. Also, additional equity investment from current shareholders had to be raised to help fund the 

project. This single investment was the largest seen for the company since the late 1970’s. Duplicating 

that effort for any further control equipment will be a challenge. 

We have digested EPA’s proposal and obtained budgetary capital and operating funds required to meet 

the emission reductions. 

 Curing Oven – Thermafiber installed an incinerator (Recuperative Thermal Oxidizer or RTO) as 

part of the original MACT and got it running in 2003. No changes to Formaldehyde emission 

limits have been proposed and Thermafiber currently meets that limit. For Phenol, Thermafiber 

needs to reduce between 0.86 – 0.87 tons per year to achieve the proposed limits. Thermafiber 

has very limited stack test data for Phenol as it has never been a pollutant on the radar. To put the 

reduction another way, EPA is proposing that Thermafiber reduce emissions to 5.67 – 29.78 

pounds per year assuming full melt rate and a maximum of 8,760 hours per year. These are 

exceptionally low levels to even measure. I suspect one upset condition could ruin compliance 

for the year. For Methanol, again Thermafiber has very limited stack test data. Based upon that 

data, Thermafiber needs to reduce between 0.26 – 0.27 tons per year to achieve the proposed 

limits. To put the reduction another way, EPA is proposing that Thermafiber reduce emissions to 

11.69 – 35.29 pounds per year assuming full melt rate and a maximum of 8,760 hours per year. 

Again this is an exceptionally low amount. It is unsure whether additional temperature within the 

oxidizer is enough to achieve these reductions. Even so, operating costs would increase as 

natural gas feed increases. The capability of existing equipment and the associated operating cost 

increases have not been quantified. 

 Collection Chamber – Thermafiber presently controls particulate emissions from the chamber by 

use of a mechanical filter (screen house). Based upon limited stack testing, Thermafiber would 

have to reduce up to 7.59 tons per year of Formaldehyde to meet the proposed lower limit. For 

Phenol, Thermafiber would have to reduce 17.24 – 22.57 tons per year. For Methanol, 

Thermafiber would have to reduce 16.32 – 16.97 tons per year to achieve the proposed limits. 

Collectively, this means between 33.56 and 47.14 tons per year must be reduced. A budgetary 

quotation obtained last month from a company skilled in pollution control devices for a large 

enough incinerator to handle the high volume of exhaust air was $1.772 million. This was strictly 

for the incinerator. An additional $0.400 million is estimated for a pre-filter and exhaust stack. 

Annual operating and maintenance expenses were estimated at $1.043 - $1.084 million. The 

equipment costs equate to $37,585 - $52,794 per ton reduced. Funding the capital will be 

challenging and the annual impact to the financials will further drive profitability in the red. 

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 131 of 133
3711 Mill Street, Wabash, IN, USA 46992-7778

Phone: 260-563-2111 • Fax: 260-563-8979

www.thermafiber.com 

 Cupola – Thermafiber installed bag houses for particulate control as part of the original MACT. 

As previously mentioned, Thermafiber voluntarily installed two incinerators in 2009 to further 

reduce emissions and cut operating costs. Based upon the proposed emission limits for COS, 

Thermafiber would have to cut emissions on one cupola by 4.10 tons per year and on the other by 

4.58 tons per year assuming full melt rates and maximum operating hours per year of 8,760. 

Whether or not the incinerators have the capability to further destroy this pollutant is unknown. 

EPA is also proposing that Hydrogen Fluoride emissions be reduced. Based upon limited stack 

testing, Thermafiber would have to reduce 5.63 – 5.95 tons per year of HF. EPA is also 

proposing that Hydrochloric Acid emissions be reduced. To meet the proposed levels 

Thermafiber would have to reduce 9.97 – 10.27 tons per year of HCl. On EPA’s website, they 

list the optimum control technology for HF and HCl as a wet scrubber. To add a wet scrubber on 

the current pollution control train if incinerators, flue gas desulfurization systems, and bag houses 

is estimated to cost $1.0 - $4.0 million. Annual operating expenses are anticipated to be $0.5 - 

$2.0 million. The equipment costs equate to $64,103 - $246,609 per combined ton reduced. 

Funding the capital will be challenging and the annual impact to the financials will further drive 

profitability in the red. 

On behalf of the 140 employees of Thermafiber, the shareholders, the customers, and the community, I 

urge you to reconsider the stringency of these regulations. Should you want to speak with me, I can be 

reached at (260)563-2111 extension 214 or via email at sedris@thermafiber.com. 

Best regards, 

Steve Edris 

President & CEO 

Cc: Mr. David Rostker 

 Office of Interagency Affairs 

 Office of Advocacy 

 U.S. Small Business Administration 

 409 Third Street, S.W., 7th Floor 

 Washington, D.C. 20416 

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 132 of 133
3711 Mill Street, Wabash, IN, USA 46992-7778

Phone: 260-563-2111 • Fax: 260-563-8979

www.thermafiber.com 

 Ms. Cortney Higgins 

 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

 Office of Management and Budget 

 725 17th Street, N.W. 

 Washington, D.C. 20503 

 Mr. Alex Cristofaro 

 Director 

 Office of Regulatory Policy and Management 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 Ariel Rios Building, Mail Code: 1803A 

 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

 Washington, D.C. 20460 

 Ms. Susan Fairchild 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02) 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Appendices - Mineral Wool Panel Report page 133 of 133