National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing, 45279-45338 [2015-16643]

Download as PDF Vol. 80 Wednesday, No. 145 July 29, 2015 Part II Environmental Protection Agency mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 40 CFR Part 63 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Final Rule VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45280 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 and EPA–HQ– OAR–2010–1042; FRL–9928–71–OAR] RIN 2060–AQ90 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) conducted for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). Under this action, we are establishing pollutant-specific emissions limits for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that were previously regulated (under a surrogate) and for HAP that were previously unregulated. This action finalizes first-time generally available control technologies (GACT) standards for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are area sources. We are also amending regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); adding requirements for reporting of performance testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); and making several minor clarifications and corrections. The revisions in these final rules increase the level of emissions control and environmental protection provided by the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP. DATES: This final action is effective on July 29, 2015. ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established two dockets for this action under Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 (for 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD) and EPA– HQ–OAR–2010–1042 (for 40 CFR part 63, subparts NNN and NN). All documents in these dockets are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566–1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, contact Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D 234–04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 5167; fax number: (919) 541–5600; and email address: fairchild.susan@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris Sarsony, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539– 02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–4843; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: sarsony.chris@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code E–19J, Chicago, IL 60604– 3507; telephone number: (312) 343– 6266; and email address: ayres.sara@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here: ADAF Age-dependent adjustment factors AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels ANSI American National Standards Institute APA Administrative Procedures Act BDL Below detection limit BFS Batch Formulation System CAA Clean Air Act CA–REL California reference exposure level CBI Confidential business information CDX Central Data Exchange CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface CEMS Continuous emission monitoring system PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO Carbon monoxide COS Carbonyl sulfide CPMS Continuous parameter monitoring system Cr Chromium CRA Congressional Review Act CRT Cathode ray tube DESP Dry electrostatic precipitator dscm Dry standard cubic meters EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines ERT Electronic Reporting Tool ESP Electrostatic precipitator FA Flame attenuation FR Federal Register GACT Generally available control technology HAP Hazardous air pollutants HCl Hydrogen chloride HEPA High efficiency particulate air HF Hydrogen fluoride HQ Hazard quotient ICR Information collection request IRIS Integrated Risk Information System Lb/ton Pounds per ton LOI Loss on ignition MACT Maximum achievable control technology MDL Minimum detection limit MIR Maximum individual risk NAICS North American Industry Classification System NAIMA North American Insulation Manufacturers Association NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NOX Nitrogen oxide NPV Net present value NSPS New Source Performance Standards NSSN National Standards Systems Network NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget PB–HAP Persistent and BioaccumulativeHAP PM Particulate matter ppm Parts per million PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RACT/BACT/LAER Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RDL Representative detection limit REL Recommended exposure limit RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis RIN Regulatory Information Number RS Rotary spin RTR Risk and Technology Review SAB Science Advisory Board SBA Small Business Administration SBAR Small Business Analytical Review SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act SO2 Sulfur dioxide SSM Startup, shutdown, malfunction TOSHI Target organ specific hazard index TTN Technology Transfer Network UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL Upper prediction limit E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards Background Information. On November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72770), the EPA proposed revisions to the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP based on our RTR under Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(f)(2) and (d)(6). We proposed chromium compounds emissions limits for wool fiberglass furnaces at major sources after finding that chromium refractories used to construct furnaces degrade with age and emit continuously-increasing levels of chromium compounds. These findings were the result of emissions testing conducted on these types of furnaces indicating significant amounts (550 pounds) of chromium emissions, 93 percent of which was in the hexavalent (most toxic) form. The furnaces tested were considered representative of all furnaces at each facility. In the November 2011 proposal, we also announced that we had already issued a new information collection request (ICR) to the wool fiberglass industry to collect data on chromium emissions and chromium refractory use at all operating wool fiberglass furnaces with the intent of regulating area sources in a future action. In the November 2011 proposal we also proposed to discontinue using formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol in both the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories and to discontinue using carbon monoxide (CO) as a surrogate for carbonyl sulfide (COS) in the Mineral Wool Production source category. This revision was proposed because we found that the surrogate for each pollutant is not necessarily a reasonable representation of the pollutant-specific emissions for these source categories (e.g., formaldehyde is not invariably present in the binder formulation). We proposed maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the HAP phenol and methanol in both source categories, and COS in the Mineral Wool Production source category. We also proposed MACT standards for hydrogen fluoride (HF) and hydrochloric acid (HCl), which are emitted from these source categories, but were not regulated under the MACT standard. On April 15, 2013 (78 FR 22370), the EPA issued a supplemental proposal that was based on comments to the November 2011 proposal and new information on processes in both source categories. New emissions test data for all wool fiberglass furnaces across the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 industry showed that the same types of furnaces were in operation at both major and area sources, but that the emissions profile of electric furnaces differed from that of gas-fired furnaces (i.e., emissions that could endanger public health). In that notice, we listed wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources, and proposed chromium emission limits for gas-fired wool fiberglass furnaces at area sources, and announced that the chromium limits at major sources would be specific to gas-fired furnaces (such as air-gas and oxyfuel furnaces) and not electric furnaces (such as cold-top and steel shell furnaces). On November 13, 2014 (79 FR 68012), the EPA issued a second supplemental proposal to explain changes to previously proposed emissions limits for sources in these source categories. We proposed work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) in lieu of certain emissions limits, and clarified our use of the upper predictive limit (UPL) in setting MACT floors. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for these rules. We summarize some of the more significant comments we received regarding the proposed rules and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA’s responses to those comments is available in the memorandum, ‘‘National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (Risk and Technology Review)—Summary of Public Comments and Responses’’ (Docket ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041 and EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). ‘‘Trackchanges’’ versions of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action are available in the respective dockets. Organization of This Document The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? B. What is the Mineral Wool Production source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? C. What changes did we propose for the Mineral Wool Production source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal? PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45281 D. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? E. What changes did we propose for major sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal? F. What did we propose for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal? III. What is Included in the Final Mineral Wool Production Rule? A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the Mineral Wool Production source category? B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the Mineral Wool Production source category? C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Mineral Wool Production source category? D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown for the Mineral Wool Production source category? E. What other changes have been made to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP? F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the new MACT standards for the Mineral Wool Production source category? G. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA? IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Mineral Wool Production source category? A. Residual Risk Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category B. Technology Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category C. MACT Standards for Pollutants Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate and Previously Unregulated Pollutants D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category E. Other Changes Made to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP V. What is Included in the Final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for major sources? A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category? B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category? C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category? D. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for the E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 45282 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category? E. What are the final rule amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category addressing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown? F. What other changes have been made to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major sources)? G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? H. What is the status of the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT standard amendments under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS Manufacturing Lines? I. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP? VI. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)? A. Residual Risk Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources) B. Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources) C. MACT Standards for Pollutants Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate and Previously Unregulated Pollutants for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources) D. Work Practice Standards for HCl and HF Emissions From Furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources) E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources) F. Other Changes Made to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (Major and Area Sources) VII. What is included in the Final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for area sources? A. Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources B. What are the final requirements for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources? C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources? D. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources? VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) pollution control. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/woolfib/ woolfipg and at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ atw/minwool/minwopg. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same Web site. Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at https:// www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites for the RTR source categories and detailed emissions and other data we used as inputs to the risk assessments. C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available A. Does this action apply to me? only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for Regulated Entities. Categories and the District of Columbia Circuit by entities potentially regulated by this September 28, 2015. Under CAA section action are shown in Table 1 of this 307(b)(2), the requirements established preamble. by this final rule may not be challenged TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL separately in any civil or criminal SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements. THIS FINAL ACTION Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA NESHAP and source NAICS a code further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an category objection to a rule or procedure which Mineral Wool Production ...... 327993 was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing ................................. 327993 (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.’’ This a North American Industry Classification section also provides a mechanism for System. the EPA to reconsider the rule ‘‘[i]f the Table 1 of this preamble is not person raising an objection can intended to be exhaustive, but rather to demonstrate to the Administrator that it provide a guide for readers regarding was impracticable to raise such entities likely to be affected by the final objection within [the period for public action for the source categories listed. comment] or if the grounds for such To determine whether your facility is objection arose after the period for affected, you should examine the public comment (but within the time applicability criteria in the appropriate specified for judicial review) and if such NESHAP. If you have any questions objection is of central relevance to the regarding the applicability of any aspect outcome of the rule.’’ Any person of this NESHAP, please contact the seeking to make such a demonstration appropriate person listed in the should submit a Petition for preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Reconsideration to the Office of the CONTACT section of this preamble. Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, B. Where can I get a copy of this EPA, WJC West Building, 1200 document and other related Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, information? DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR In addition to being available in the FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, docket, an electronic copy of this final and the Associate General Counsel for action will also be available on the the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office Internet through the Technology of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., exchange in various areas of air Washington, DC 20460. I. General Information PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year or more, or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology or MACT standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques, including but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above. For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor, under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)’’ no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).1 For more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see the November 25, 2011, proposal (76 FR 72773). CAA sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and (k)(3) address regulation of area sources. Collectively, these sections are the basis of the Area Source Program under the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy).2 Area sources are those that emit less than the major source threshold of HAP (i.e., less than 10 tons per year of a single pollutant or 25 tons per year of a combination of HAP. Under the Strategy, we must regulate emissions of the 30 most toxic HAP emitted by area sources, based on generally available control technology (GACT), at a minimum. These provisions do not require the EPA to regulate all HAP from all HAP-emitting processes as we must do when setting MACT standards. On April 15, 2013, consistent with the Strategy, the agency added gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at area 1 The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards provide an ’ample margin of safety,’ then the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.’’). 2 For EPA’s document on the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, see 64 FR 38706–38715–716 (July 19, 1999). PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45283 sources to the source category list 3 4 and proposed emissions standards for particulate matter (PM) and chromium compounds from these sources at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities (78 FR 22370). On November 13, 2014, we withdrew our previously proposed GACT limits for PM and proposed to only require total chromium compounds emissions limits for these sources. Reduction of PM is accomplished through chromium reductions because chromium is the toxic pollutant entrained within PM that is emitted by these sources. We are finalizing GACT limits for chromium compound emissions for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area source category. With this regulation, pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B), the agency will have subjected additional sources to regulation for the urban metal HAP chromium compounds, which is wholly consistent with the goals of the Strategy. For more information on the statutory authority for this rule, see the November 25, 2011, supplemental proposal (76 FR 72770), the April 15, 2013, supplemental proposal (78 FR 22375–22376), and the November 13, 2014, supplemental proposal (79 FR 68012). B. What is the Mineral Wool Production source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? The EPA promulgated the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP on June 1, 1999 (64 FR 29490). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD. The Mineral Wool Production industry consists of facilities that produce mineral wool fiber from slag, rock, or other materials, excluding sand or glass. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently consists of eight facilities. Mineral wool is a material used mainly for thermal and acoustical insulation. This category includes, but is not limited to, the following process units: A cupola furnace for melting the mineral charge; a blow chamber in which air and, in some cases, a binder are drawn over the fibers, forming them to a screen; a curing oven to bond the fibers; and a cooling compartment. The 1999 NESHAP rule set emissions limits 3 For the listing documents of the Strategy, see 64 FR 38075, July 19, 1999; 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002; 67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002; 73 FR 78637, December 23, 2008; and 74 FR 30366, June 25, 2009. 4 We have made several revisions to the CAA section 112(c)(3) list since its issuance: 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002; 67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002; 73 FR 78637, December 23, 2008; 74 FR 30366, June 25, 2009. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45284 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 for PM from new and existing cupolas, CO from new cupolas, and formaldehyde from new and existing curing ovens. C. What changes did we propose for the Mineral Wool Production source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal? On November 25, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule for the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD, that proposed RTR amendments to this standard under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2). In that proposal, we stated that maximum individual risk (MIR) for cancer was 4-in-1 million based on available test data for actual emissions and 10-in-1 million based on the MACTallowable emission limits of the rule. We proposed, considering all available information, that risks were acceptable. For PM, we reviewed the control technologies in use by the industry and did not find any improvements or developments in practices, processes, and control technologies since the 1999 MACT standard was promulgated. Therefore, we did not propose amendments to the PM standards under either CAA sections 112(f)(2) or (d)(6). We also proposed to discontinue use of surrogates where we determined that the surrogacy was not reasonable. We proposed to discontinue using CO as a surrogate for COS, and to discontinue use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol. Based on new source test data and CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), we proposed MACT floor emission limits for existing and new sources of COS, phenol, and methanol, pollutants that were previously regulated under a surrogate; and MACT floor emission limits for formaldehyde, the former surrogate. We retained PM as a surrogate for nonmercury HAP metals because there is a reasonable surrogate relationship. We also proposed emissions limits for HF and HCl, two pollutants that were previously unregulated, and proposed alternative emission limits for periods of startup and shutdown. On April 15, 2013, we published a supplemental proposal for the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP that took into consideration the comments received on the November 2011 proposal, new emissions testing for horizontal lines, and subcategorization of cupolas based on design and raw material use. We withdrew our previously-proposed alternative emission limits for startup and shutdown, and instead proposed that VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 sources may demonstrate compliance with the MACT floor emission limits during periods of startup and shutdown by keeping records showing that the emissions from cupolas were routed to air pollution control devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard. On November 13, 2014, the EPA published a second supplemental proposal for the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP that took into consideration comments received on the 2013 supplemental proposal, explained changes to previously proposed MACT limits for sources in this source category and clarified our use of the UPL in setting the MACT floors. In that proposal, we also proposed work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) for periods of startup and shutdown based on the practices used by the best performers among mineral wool producers to minimize emissions during these activities. D. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? The EPA promulgated the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP on June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category is defined as any facility engaged in producing wool fiberglass from sand, feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid or any other materials. The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing industry consists of facilities that produce bonded building insulation using a rotary spin (RS) manufacturing line, and facilities that produce bonded pipe insulation and bonded heavydensity products using a flame attenuation (FA) manufacturing line. The 1999 MACT standards currently apply to 10 major sources in the wool fiberglass industry. Another 20 facilities are area sources. Wool fiberglass is used primarily as a thermal and acoustical insulation for buildings, automobiles, aircraft, appliances, ductwork and pipes. This category includes, but is not limited to, the following process units: A furnace for melting the mineral charge; a bonded line operation in which air and a binder are drawn over the fibers and cured in an oven to bond the fibers; and a cooling compartment. The 1999 NESHAP rule set emissions limits for PM from new and existing glass-melting furnaces and formaldehyde emissions from new FA and new and existing RS bonded lines. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E. What changes did we propose for major sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal? On November 25, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP to amend the standard based on our RTR analyses. In that proposal, we found under CAA section 112(f)(2) that the MIR for cancer, primarily due to emissions of hexavalent chromium and formaldehyde, was 40-in-1 million based on actual emissions and 60-in-1 million based on MACT-allowable emissions. The maximum chronic noncancer target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) value based on actual emissions was 0.2 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts. The acute noncancer hazard quotient (HQ), based on the recommended exposure limit (REL) for formaldehyde, was 30. The acute noncancer HQ, based on the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL–1) for formaldehyde, was 2. We determined that nothing prevents construction of a high chromium emitting furnace at any wool fiberglass facility. Therefore, we evaluated risk under an auxiliary risk assessment which asked, ‘‘if all wool fiberglass facilities emitted hexavalent chromium at the level of the highest emitter (that is, 450 pounds of hexavalent chromium annually), what would be the risk to human health?’’ The MIR under the auxiliary risk analysis exceeded 100-in-one million at four facilities, a level we consider unacceptable. Although the risk from actual emissions were considered to be well within a level we consider acceptable, we proposed that risk due to hexavalent chromium could be further reduced to achieve an ample margin of safety. The chromium compounds limit would also prevent operation of another highchromium emitting furnace in this source category. We therefore proposed chromium compounds emission limits of 0.00006 pounds of chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled, under CAA section 112(f)(2). We proposed under CAA section 112(d)(6) that the control technologies in place on wool fiberglass manufacturing furnaces were essentially the same as existed at the time the MACT standards were promulgated, but that there have been improvements in both the operation and the design of furnaces and their control technologies since that time. As a result, we proposed E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45285 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations emissions limits for both PM and total chromium compounds for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at major sources, under CAA section 112(d)(6), and indicated our intent to list and regulate chromium compounds at area sources in a future action. In the November 2011 proposal, similar to how we addressed the mineral wool source category, we also proposed in wool fiberglass to discontinue use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol because the surrogacy was not reasonable. We proposed phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol MACT floor emission limits based on information collected in 2010 for two subcategories of bonded lines under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We proposed limits for FA lines that apply to all lines without further subcategorization, and proposed alternative emission limits for periods of startup and shutdown. In that notice, we also announced that we had issued an ICR under our section 114 authority to gather additional emission information on furnace chromium emissions. In our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we took into consideration comments received on the November 2011 proposal, new process and chromium emissions test data, and related furnace data collected under a CAA section 114 ICR. We further proposed revised PM emission limits for glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major sources under CAA section 112(d)(6), presented the results of the new chromium emission testing collected from glass-melting furnaces, and required that the chromium emission limits proposed under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) would apply only to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at major sources. We proposed an alternative compliance provision for startup and shutdown that would require sources to keep records showing that emissions were routed to the air pollution control devices and that these control devices were operated at the parameters established during the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the applicable emission limits. For electric cold-top furnaces, we proposed limiting raw material content to only cullet during startup and shutdown in recognition of the fact that these furnaces do not allow control devices to be operated during startup. For all other glass-melting furnaces, we also required preheating the empty furnace using only natural gas. On November 13, 2014, the EPA published a second supplemental proposal. For major sources, the 2014 supplemental proposal took into consideration comments received on the 2013 supplemental proposal, withdrew the previously proposed amendments for affirmative defense, explained changes to previously proposed limits for major sources in this source category, proposed work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) for periods of startup and shutdown, and clarified our use of the UPL in setting MACT floors. that are area sources under CAA section 112(d)(5). We proposed GACT standards of 0.00006 pounds of chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled and 0.33 pounds of PM per ton of glass pulled. These were the same limits that we proposed for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at major sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. To maintain consistency with the major source rule, we proposed the same provisions for startup, shutdown, malfunction, testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping that we proposed for major sources. On November 13, 2014, the EPA published a second supplemental proposal. For area sources, the 2014 supplemental proposal took into consideration comments received on the 2013 supplemental proposal, withdrew the previously proposed provisions for affirmative defense, explained changes to previously proposed limits for sources in this source category, and proposed work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) for periods of startup and shutdown. F. What did we propose for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal? In the November 2011 proposal, we noted our intent to potentially list wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources and to use data from the CAA section 114 letter noted above to regulate wool fiberglass area sources in a future action. On April 15, 2013, the EPA published a supplemental proposal that listed gasfired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are area sources as a source category under CAA sections 112(c)(3)and (k)(3). We also proposed first-time PM and total chromium compounds standards for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities III. What is included in the final Mineral Wool Production rule? This action finalizes the EPA’s determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the Mineral Wool Production source category and amends the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP based on those determinations. This action also finalizes MACT emission limits under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown under CAA section 112(h), and other changes to the NESHAP discussed in section III.E of this preamble. In this action, we are finalizing, as previously proposed, the emission limits for HAP-emitting processes in the Mineral Wool Production source category, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble. TABLE 2—EMISSION LIMITS FOR THE MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY Subcategory HAP 2011 Proposal 2013 Proposal 2014 Proposal Cupolas .............. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Process Existing Open-top ........................... New Open-top ................................. Existing Closed-top ......................... New Closed-top .............................. Existing Processing Slag ................ COS ................... COS ................... COS ................... COS ................... HF ...................... HCl ..................... HF ...................... HCl ..................... HF ...................... HCl ..................... HF ...................... HCl ..................... 3.3 .................. 0.017 .............. 3.3 .................. 0.017 .............. 0.014 .............. 0.0096 ............ 0.014 .............. 0.0096 ............ 0.014 .............. 0.0096 ............ 0.014 .............. 0.0096 ............ 6.8 .................. 4.3 .................. 3.4 .................. 0.025 .............. 0.16 ................ 0.21 ................ 0.16 ................ 0.21 ................ 0.13 ................ 0.43 ................ 0.13 ................ 0.43 ................ No change ..... 3.2 .................. No change ..... 0.062 .............. No change ..... 0.44 ................ 0.015 .............. 0.012 .............. No change ..... No change ..... 0.018 .............. 0.015 .............. New Processing Slag ..................... Existing Not Processing Slag ......... New Not Processing Slag ............... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Final rule 6.8 3.2 3.4 0.062 0.16 0.44 0.015 0.012 0.13 0.43 0.018 0.015 45286 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 2—EMISSION LIMITS FOR THE MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION SOURCE CATEGORY—Continued Process Subcategory HAP 2011 Proposal 2013 Proposal 2014 Proposal Bonded Lines ..... Vertical (Existing and New) Combined Collection and Curing Operations. Horizontal (Existing and New) Combined Collection and Curing Operations. Drum (Existing and New) Combined Collection and Curing Operations. Formaldehyde .... Phenol ................ Methanol ............ Formaldehyde .... Phenol ................ Methanol ............ Formaldehyde .... Phenol ................ Methanol ............ 0.46 ................ 0.52 ................ 0.63 ................ 0.054 .............. 0.15 ................ 0.022 .............. 0.067 .............. 0.0023 ............ 0.00077 .......... 2.7 .................. 0.74 ................ 1.0 .................. No change ..... No change ..... No change ..... 0.18 ................ 1.3 .................. 0.48 ................ 2.4 .................. 0.71 ................ 0.92 ................ 0.63 ................ 0.12 ................ 0.49 ................ 0.17 ................ 0.85 ................ 0.28 ................ A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the Mineral Wool Production source category? As presented in the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we are finalizing our determination that risks from the Mineral Wool Production source category are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. We are, therefore, not requiring additional controls and are thus readopting the existing standards under section 112(f)(2). B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the Mineral Wool Production source category? mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 As discussed in the November 2011 proposal (76 FR 72786–72787, 72798), we identified and evaluated the developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the 1999 MACT rules were promulgated. In cases where we identified such developments, we analyzed the technical feasibility and the estimated impacts (e.g., costs, emissions reductions, risk reductions) of applying these developments. We then decided, based on impacts and feasibility, whether it was necessary to propose amendments to the regulation to require any of the identified developments. Based on our analyses of the data, information collected under the voluntary ICR, our general understanding of both of the industries and other available information on potential controls for these industries, we identified potential developments 5 5 For the purpose of this exercise, we considered developments not identified or considered during development of the 1999 MACT rules, including any add-on control technology or equipment; any improvements in technology or equipment that could result in significant additional emissions reduction; any work practice or operational procedure; any process change or pollution prevention alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry; and any development in equipment VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 in practices, processes, and control technologies. In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and technologies that were not considered at the time we developed the 1999 MACT rules, we reviewed a variety of data sources for the mineral wool industry. This review included the NESHAP for various industries promulgated after the 1999 MACT rules, regulatory requirements and technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these efforts that could possibly be applied to emissions sources in the Mineral Wool Production source category, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies. We additionally consulted the EPA’s Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse to identify potential technology advances, and searched this database to determine whether it contained any practices, processes, or control technologies for the types of processes covered by the mineral wool production rule. We also requested information from facilities regarding developments in practices, processes or control technologies and we reviewed other information sources, such as state and local permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases. For more information, see the ‘‘Technology Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category Memorandum’’ in the docket to this rule. As a result of our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Mineral Wool Production source category, we determined that there are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to this MACT standard. We are therefore not or technology that could result in decreased HAP emissions. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Final rule 2.4 0.71 0.92 0.63 0.12 0.49 0.17 0.85 0.28 amending the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Mineral Wool Production source category? This action finalizes the removal of formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol, and the removal of CO as a surrogate for COS, as earlier explained in this preamble and as proposed on November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72770). We also are finalizing the proposed COS, HCl, and HF emission limits for cupolas and the proposed emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for bonded lines developed as a result of new representative detection limit (RDL) values, new source test data and our approach for calculating MACT floors based on limited data sets, as discussed in section III.B of the November 2014 supplemental proposal preamble. These final rule requirements for the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP are consistent with the provisions discussed in our various proposals. D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown for the Mineral Wool Production source category? We are finalizing, as proposed, amendments to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has established work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown under CAA section 112(h) because measurement of the emissions is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Emissions are not at steady state during startup and shutdown (a necessary factor for accurate emissions testing), and the varying stack conditions, gas compositions and low emission rates make accurate emission measurements impracticable. In addition, the startup period for mineral wool cupolas is usually 2 hours, which is too short a E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 time in which to conduct source testing. We are finalizing under CAA section 112(h), as previously proposed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal, standards requiring affected sources to comply with work practices that are used by the best performers during periods of startup and shutdown. The best performers in the mineral wool industry use one of two possible work practices: either they route any cupola emissions that occur during startup and shutdown to an operating baghouse, or, alternatively, operate the cupola during startup and shutdown with three percent excess oxygen. Regarding the first alternative, baghouses achieve the same outlet concentrations regardless of pollutant loading in the emission stream, and fluctuations in pollutants or exhaust flow rate do not affect the overall level of emissions at the outlet of this control device. Regarding the second alternative, operating the cupola with excess oxygen prevents the formation of pollutants that would otherwise be routed to existing controls. In the final rule, we are specifying work practice standards that require items of equipment that are required or utilized for compliance with subpart DDD to be operating during startup and shutdown, designating when startups and shutdowns begin, and specifying recordkeeping requirements for startup and shutdown periods. We are also revising Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 (General Provisions applicability table) to change several references related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We are eliminating or revising certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. E. What other changes have been made to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP? We are finalizing, as proposed, addition of EPA Methods 26A and 320 in appendix A part 63 for measuring the concentrations of HCl and HF. We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for existing sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations no later than July 30, 2018 and every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for new sources to comply with the emission limits of the final rule on July 29, 2015, or upon the first cupola campaign, whichever is later, and to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 within 180 days of the applicable compliance date. We are also adding an alternative operating limit for cupolas that provides owners or operators the option of maintaining the percent excess oxygen in the cupola at or above the level established during the performance test. In addition, we are finalizing editorial changes to the performance testing and compliance procedures to specify formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and COS rather than only the surrogates formaldehyde and CO. In this action, we are finalizing, as proposed, definitions for ‘‘closed-top cupola,’’ ‘‘open-top cupola,’’ ‘‘combined collection/curing operations’’ and ‘‘incinerator.’’ We are also adding a definition for ‘‘slag.’’ The 2013 supplemental proposal indicated that we would add such a definition (78 FR 22386). Slag is the primary contributing factor to the formation of HF and HCl in the cupola emissions, and is, for some mineral wool formulas, a necessary ingredient for the production of mineral wool. We subcategorized cupolas according to their use of slag as a raw material in the cupola, and are in this final rule defining slag in 40 CFR 63.1196 to mean the by-product materials separated from metals during smelting and refining of raw ore. We are also making minor corrections to the citations in Table 1 (part 63 General Provision applicability table) to reflect both the final amendments in this action, and the revisions that have been made to the General Provisions since 1999. F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the new MACT standards for the Mineral Wool Production source category? The new MACT standards for the Mineral Wool Production source category being promulgated in this action are effective on July 29, 2015. The compliance date for existing cupolas and combined collection/curing operations is July 30, 2018. New sources must comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, July 29, 2015, or upon initial startup, whichever is later. Mineral wool producers are predominantly small businesses. Prior to the November 25, 2011, proposal, we found there was potentially a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE), and convened a small business advocacy review (SBAR) panel. In that process, the EPA conducted meetings with mineral wool companies and the Small Business Office of Advocacy in order to PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45287 determine ways in which the impact and burden to small entities could be reduced while continuing to meet the requirements of the CAA. Stakeholders requested up to 3 years to comply with the standards once they were promulgated, in order to be able to install controls, find sources of lowsulfur coke and low-chloride slag, and to conduct performance testing. In subsequent proposals, we subcategorized cupolas according to design and according to raw material use, and can certify that the final rule will not have a SISNOSE. However, we believe that it is still appropriate to retain the proposed compliance date of 3 years after promulgation because the added compliance emissions testing and any process changes sources needed to comply could become significant if the compliance time were shortened to less than the 3 years allowed for standards developed under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). G. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA? As stated in the proposed preamble to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and operators of affected facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports. As mentioned in the preamble of the November 2011 proposal, data will be collected by direct computer-tocomputer electronic transfer using EPAprovided software. As discussed in the November 2011 proposal, the EPAprovided software is an electronic performance test report tool called the ERT. The ERT will generate an electronic report package which will be submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can be found at https:// www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/, and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ cdx. The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site. The EPA believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45288 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking benefits industry by cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept in hard copy. As mentioned in the preamble of the November 2011 proposal, state, local, and tribal agencies will benefit from more streamlined and accurate review of performance test data that will be available on the EPA WebFIRE database. The public will also benefit. Having these data publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided software, see the discussion in the preamble of the November 2011 proposal. In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control strategy development, and other air pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated with performance test data will save industry; state, local, and tribal agencies; and the EPA significant time, money, and effort, while improving the quality of emission inventories, air quality regulations and enhancing the public’s access to this important information. IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Mineral Wool Production source category? For each topic, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the subject, the EPA’s rationale for the final decisions and amendments and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA’s responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the dockets for each source category. A. Residual Risk Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Mineral Wool Production source category? Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk assessment on the Mineral Wool Production source category and presented the results of this assessment, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the November 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 72798). Based on the inhalation risk assessment, we VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 estimated that the MIR could be up to 4-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up to 10-in-1 million due to MACTallowable emissions, mainly due to formaldehyde stack emissions. We estimated that the incidence of cancer based on actual emissions is 0.0004 excess cancer cases per year or one case every 2,500 years, and that about 1,700 people face a cancer risk greater than 1in-1 million due to HAP emissions from the mineral wool production source category. That risk assessment indicated that the maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI value for the Mineral Wool Production source category could be up to 0.04 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic non-cancer impacts. Our screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts indicated the potential for only one pollutant, formaldehyde, to exceed an HQ value of 1 at only one facility in the Mineral Wool Production source category, with a potential maximum HQ up to 8. A refined emissions multiplier of 3 was used to estimate the peak hourly emission rates from the average rates. Consequently, in November 2011 we proposed that risks from this source category were acceptable. In addition, we did not identify cost-effective options that would further reduce risk under our ample margin of safety analysis. Therefore, we proposed that the current standards for the Mineral Wool Production source category provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We also determined that HAP emissions from this source category were not expected to result in adverse environmental effects. In the April 2013 supplemental proposal, we revised the risk assessment to reflect new emissions data submitted by the industry following the 2011 proposal, the development of subcategories for HCl and HF emissions from slag- and nonslag-processing cupolas, and subcategories for COS emissions from closed- and open-top cupolas. As noted in the 2013 supplemental proposal, the risks estimated in our revised assessment under CAA section 112(f)(2) from actual emissions increased slightly (based on the new data) compared to the risk assessment conducted for the 2011 proposal. The actual MIR for cancer increased from 4-in-1 million to 10-in1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value for the source category increased from 0.04 to 0.12 with emissions of formaldehyde PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. The acute noncancer HQ, based on the REL for formaldehyde, increased from 8 to 20. The acute noncancer HQ, based on the AEGL–1 for formaldehyde, increased from 0.4 to 1.1. While the risk increased slightly based on the new source test data, we noted that that our findings regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety remained unchanged. In our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we also revised the draft risk assessment under CAA section 112(f)(2) based on new emissions data collected by the industry and updates to the model and model libraries. The new test data that were received did not change our estimate of risk from actual emissions when compared to the risk assessment conducted for the 2013 supplemental proposal. The risk from mineral wool production continued to be driven by formaldehyde and to be well within a level we consider to be acceptable. The MIR for cancer for actual baseline emissions remained 10in-1 million, with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 20 for the REL and at 1 for the AEGL–1. The maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions remained at 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. The MIR for cancer from mineral wool production due to allowable emissions (under the original MACT standard) was estimated to be 30-in-1 million (formaldehyde). Facilities actually emit formaldehyde at levels lower than allowed under the 1999 MACT standard, and the limits in the final rule codify formaldehyde (and the other HAP) limits at the actual emissions levels. As a result, the potential MIR for cancer due to allowable emissions after implementation of the standard is estimated to be 10-in-1 million. Therefore, the MIR based on emissions at the level of this standard (i.e., what sources are permitted to emit) decreased by a factor of 3 from MACT-allowable levels. Additional information on the risk assessment can be found in the document titled, ‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing in Support of the June 2015 Final Rule’’ available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 1041). E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2. How did the risk review change for the Mineral Wool Production source category? We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment since the November 2014 supplemental proposal. 3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review for the Mineral Wool Production source category, and what are our responses? The comments received on the proposed risk review were generally supportive of our determination of risk acceptability and ample margin of safety analysis and requirement for additional control. A summary of the comments received regarding the risk acceptability and ample margin of safety analysis and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041). None of the public comments resulted in changes to the conclusions of our risk analysis. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the risk review for the Mineral Wool Production source category? As explained in the various proposals and in section IV.A.1 of this preamble, our assessment of residual risk from the Mineral Wool Production source category shows that risks from the source category are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and prevent an adverse environmental effect. We are, therefore, not requiring additional controls and are thus readopting the existing standards under section 112(f)(2). mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 B. Technology Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Mineral Wool Production source category? Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology review that focused on identifying and evaluating developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for sources of HAP in the Mineral Wool Production source category. As discussed in the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72798), existing cupolas are controlled using baghouses, and bonded lines are controlled using thermal oxidizers. We did not identify any relevant cost-effective developments in technologies, practices, or processes since promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP that would further reduce HAP emissions. Therefore, we did not propose any changes to the 1999 NESHAP as a result of our technology VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 review under CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Mineral Wool Production source category. Additional information regarding the technology review for the Mineral Wool Production source category can be found in the document titled, ‘‘Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Final Mineral Wool NESHAP’’ available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041). 2. How did the technology review change for the Mineral Wool Production source category? We have not changed any aspect of the technology review for this source category since the November 2014 supplemental proposal. 3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what are our responses? The comments received on our technology review and findings were generally supportive. A summary of the comments received regarding the technology review and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–1041). We note that none of the public comments and information received in response to the November 2014 supplemental proposal provided data relevant to the technology review, and we made no changes to the technology review based on the comments. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology review? As explained in the various proposals and in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, we did not identify any cost-effective developments in practices, processes and controls used to reduce emissions from the mineral wool production industry. Therefore, consistent with our proposals, we are not making any changes to the standards as a result of the CAA section 112(d)(6) review. C. MACT Standards for Pollutants Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate and Previously Unregulated Pollutants 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate and for previously unregulated pollutants? In our November 2011 proposal, we proposed revisions to the 1999 NESHAP under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We proposed to remove unreasonable surrogates, to set limits for each HAP emitted that was previously regulated under a surrogate, and to set limits for previously unregulated HAP. These revisions included removing CO as a PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45289 surrogate for COS and removing formaldehyde as a surrogate for methanol and phenol; proposing emission limits for COS from cupolas, formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from combined collection and curing operations; and proposing emissions limits for previously unregulated pollutants (i.e., HCl and HF emitted from cupolas). In our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we made changes to the previously proposed emission limits for phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol based on new emissions test data. We further proposed subcategories for COS emissions from cupolas based on cupola design. Finally, we proposed subcategories for HF and HCl from cupolas based on whether they processed slag. In the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we revised emission limits under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for cupolas and bonded lines as a result of new information regarding detection limits (and consistent with our procedures for ensuring that emission limits are not set below the minimum level that can be accurately measured), new source test data and our approach for calculating MACT floors based on limited data sets. 2. How did we change our proposed emission limits for pollutants that were previously regulated under a surrogate or that were previously unregulated? Our final emission limits for pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate, and previously unregulated pollutants did not change since our most recent proposal in November 2014. 3. What key comments did we receive on pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate and on previously unregulated pollutants? We received comments both supporting and objecting to our use of the UPL in calculating MACT floors and the way we treat limited datasets for these pollutants. The commenters did not provide new information or a basis for the EPA to change the proposed emission limits, and did not show that facilities cannot comply with the MACT standards. The comments related to the proposed emission limits for pollutants that were previously regulated under a surrogate and that were previously unregulated are in the comment summary and the response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041). E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 45290 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate and for previously unregulated pollutants? As we discussed in the preamble for the November 2014 supplemental proposal and provided in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we are finalizing, as proposed, the emission limits for pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate and for previously unregulated pollutants. Three surrogate relationships were in place in the Mineral Wool MACT standard, and we reviewed each of these to determine whether they were reasonable surrogates. We found that the relationship of formaldehyde, methanol and phenol emissions tend to be specific to the binder formulation of an individual product. We found that the surrogacy of CO for COS was not reasonable because the two pollutants are not invariably present and the relationships tend to be specific to the site. We retained the surrogacy of PM for non-mercury HAP metals because control of PM achieves the same level of control for non-mercury HAP metals, regardless of the concentration of those metals in the PM or whether the concentration of those metals varies in the PM. We requested and obtained HAPspecific emissions testing for all HAP emitted by all processes in the mineral wool industry. Emissions of PM, HF, HCl, and COS were measured from at least one cupola in operation at each facility, and emissions of formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol were measured at the three bonded lines that were in operation in 2010. As a result of the information we gathered, we are finalizing limits for all measured HAP and for the collection process, which emits HAP but was not regulated under the 1999 MACT standard. We are not changing the PM emission limit as a result of the information we gathered. HF and HCl were not previously regulated, and the emissions of these pollutants depend upon whether slag is used in the cupola. Slag is a raw material in the mineral wool industry that is a waste product of electric arc furnaces at steel plants. Depending on the end-use of the mineral wool product, slag is a needed ingredient in some mineral wool formulations and an undesirable ingredient in others. The use of slag as a raw material in the mineral wool cupola causes ‘‘shot’’ (small pellets of iron) to form in the mineral wool product. The quality of some mineral wool products (such as that used for hydroponic gardening) is VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 affected by the presence of shot, and, as a result, facilities making such products do not use slag in their raw materials. Consequently, their emissions of HF and HCl are lower. Two subcategories of cupolas reflect whether slag is processed in the cupola. Emissions of COS are affected by whether a cupola is designed as a closed cupola (which results in lower COS emissions) or an open cupola (which results in higher COS emissions). Two subcategories of cupolas reflect this design criteria. Data collected from the mineral wool industry showed three bonded lines were in operation at the time of data collection in 2010. The bonded lines include both collection (the process in which the fibers are formed and sprayed with a phenol/formaldehyde binding agent); and curing, the thermosetting process that cures the binder. Collection was not regulated under the 1999 MACT standard, the emissions from both the curing and collection processes are vented to the same line, and the emissions from these processes can be measured together. These combined collection and curing operations emit phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol as a result of the phenolic resin used to produce the bonded product. We are finalizing limits for combined collection and curing operations according to three different designs: Vertical, horizontal, and drum. The final emission limits for the mineral wool industry are shown above in Table 2 of section III of this preamble. D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category 1. What SSM provisions did we propose for the Mineral Wool Production source category? In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. We have therefore eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established work practice standards for those periods. We also revised Table 1 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 of the General Provisions applicability table in several respects as is explained in more detail below. For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and reporting provisions that are related to the SSM exemption as described in detail in the proposed rule and summarized again in section IV.D of this preamble, in the rule at 40 CFR 63.1389, and in the General Provisions Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Mineral Wool Production source category? We have not changed any aspect of the proposed SSM provisions since the November 2014 supplemental proposal. 3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are our responses? We received comments regarding the proposed revisions to remove the SSM exemptions for the Mineral Wool Production source category. Comments from industry representatives expressed support for the proposed work practice standards. Another commenter contended that we should have established numerical emission limits. As we noted in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68016), the EPA may promulgate a work practice rather than an emissions standard when measurement of the emissions is technically and economically practicable. In the case of this source category, emissions are not at steady state during startup and shutdown (a necessary factor for accurate emissions testing), and the varying stack conditions, gas compositions, and flow rates make accurate emission measurements impracticable. In addition, startup period for mineral wool cupolas, typically 2 hours, is too short a time to conduct source testing. The commenters did not provide new information or a basis for the EPA to change the proposed provisions and did not show that facilities cannot comply with the work practice standards during periods of startup and shutdown. The comments related to the proposed revisions to remove the SSM exemptions and our specific responses to those comments can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041). E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the SSM provisions? For the reasons provided above, in the preamble for the proposed rule and provided in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we have removed the SSM exemption from the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP; eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption; and removed or modified inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. For periods of startup and shutdown, we are finalizing the work practices of the best performers, as proposed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal. Owners/operators may choose to comply using two potential options during startup and shutdown. One, cupola emissions may be controlled using the control devices that meet the limits of the standard during normal operation, or two, the cupola may be operated during startup and shutdown with 3 percent or more excess oxygen. Additionally, sources must maintain records of the startup and shutdown option they practice, and must monitor and keep records of the parameters of the operating control device(s) or the oxygen level of the cupola during these periods. The controls of startup and shutdown emissions practiced by the best performers in the source category are sufficient so that no additional standards are needed to address emissions during startup or shutdown periods. E. Other Changes Made to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP 1. What other changes did we propose for the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP? a. Electronic Reporting As stated in the preamble to the November 2011 proposed rule, the EPA proposed electronic reporting requirements. See section III.G of this preamble for more information on what we proposed (and what we are finalizing) for electronic reporting. b. Test Methods and Testing Frequency We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for new sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations within 180 days of the applicable compliance date and every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for existing sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations by July 30, 2018 and every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing, as proposed, the addition of EPA Methods 26A and 320 in appendix A of part 63 for measuring the concentrations of HCl and HF; and EPA Method 318 for measuring the concentrations of COS, formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol. In addition, we are finalizing editorial changes to the performance testing and compliance procedures to replace references in the 1999 NESHAP to the surrogates CO and formaldehyde with references to specific HAP (formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for the surrogate formaldehyde, and COS for the surrogate CO). 2. How did the provisions regarding these other changes to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP change since proposal? We have not made any changes to the proposed provisions for electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; definitions or revisions to the General Provision applicability table. 45291 3. What key comments did we receive on the other changes to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP, and what are our responses? We received no key comments regarding electronic reporting, testing methods and frequency, definitions, and revisions to the General Provisions applicability table. A summary of the comments we did receive and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1041). 4. What is the rationale for our final decisions regarding these other changes to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP? There was no information in the public comments that affected the rationale for these provisions that was presented in the various proposals. Therefore, we are finalizing the proposed provisions regarding electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; definitions and revisions to the General Provision applicability table. V. What is included in the Final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for major sources? This action finalizes the EPA’s determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and amends the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP based on those determinations. This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP (e.g., compliance dates) as discussed in section V.F of this preamble. In addition, we are finalizing the emission limits for major sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category as shown in Table 3 of this preamble. TABLE 3—EMISSION LIMITS FOR WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING MAJOR SOURCES [lb pollutant/ton glass pulled] Process HAP Existing Flame Attenuation Lines ................................................................................. Formaldehyde ........................................... Phenol ....................................................... Methanol ................................................... Formaldehyde ........................................... Phenol ....................................................... Methanol ................................................... PM ............................................................. Chromium compounds .............................. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 New Flame Attenuation Lines ...................................................................................... Existing and New Furnaces ......................................................................................... Existing and New Gas-Fired Furnaces ........................................................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Emission limit 5.6 1.4 0.50 2.6 0.44 0.35 0.33 0.00025 45292 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category? Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing emission limits for chromium emissions from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces of 0.00025 pounds of total chromium per ton of glass pulled to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. We are also requiring that facilities establish the materials mix, including the percentages of raw materials and cullet, used in gasfired glass-melting furnaces during the performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limit. We are requiring that the percentage of cullet in the material mix be continually maintained at or below the level established during the most recent performance test showing compliance with the standard. We note that although we have adopted these same standards, under both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these standards rest on independent statutory authorities and independent rationales. Consequently, these standards remain independent and legally severable. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category? We determined that there are developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), we are revising the existing MACT standards to include an emission limit for glass-melting furnaces of 0.33 pounds of PM per ton of glass pulled as we proposed in April 2013. In this action, we are also revising the proposed chromium emission limit for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces from 0.00006 to 0.00025 pounds of total chromium per ton of glass pulled, based on our re-assessment of emissions data for newly-rebuilt gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We note that although we have adopted the total chromium compounds standards under both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these standards rest on independent statutory authorities and independent rationales. Consequently, these standards remain independent and legally severable. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category? This action finalizes the HAP-specific limits proposed in November 2014 that we developed under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) as a result of removing the use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for methanol and phenol on FA lines. We are also eliminating the subcategories for FA lines because the technical bases for distinguishing the subcategories when the original rule was developed no longer exist and we are promulgating emission limits at the MACT floor level for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol. As explained in section V.H of this preamble, we are not, at this time, finalizing limits under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS lines. D. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category? This action finalizes the work practice standards for HCl and HF emissions from glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities developed under CAA section 112(h) as proposed in November 2014 (79 FR 68023). These amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP are consistent with the amendments discussed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal. E. What are the final rule amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category addressing emissions during periods of startup and shutdown? We are finalizing, as proposed, changes to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has established work practice standards in this rule that apply during startup and shutdown periods. We are revising Table 1 to subpart NNN of part 63 (General Provisions applicability table) to change several references related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. We are specifying that items of equipment that are required or utilized for compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN must be operated during startup and shutdown. We are finalizing the specifications designating when startup and shutdown begins and PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 recordkeeping requirements for demonstrating compliance during startup and shutdown periods. We determined that facilities in this source category can meet the applicable work practice standards by following the startup and shutdown procedures that we identified as representative of the procedures employed by the best performing units during periods of startup and shutdown. Gas-fired furnaces use an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) to control emissions during normal operations. The best performing gas-fired furnaces route emissions during startup and shutdown to the control device. We note that operators of gas-fired furnaces that formerly turned off the controls during startup or shutdown would no longer be allowed to do so. Electric furnaces use baghouses to control emissions during normal operations. Until the crust is formed on top of the molten glass (and startup ends) the temperature of the gases that would be routed to the baghouse would cause the bags to catch fire. The best performing electric furnaces use only cullet (which emits PM at extremely low levels when melted) and clean fuels (natural gas, which does not emit PM when combusted) during startup and shutdown in order to minimize PM emissions during these periods. F. What other changes have been made to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major sources)? We are finalizing, as proposed, the addition of EPA Method 29 for measuring the concentrations of chromium. We are finalizing the requirement, as proposed, to maintain the filter temperature at 248 ± 25 °F when using Method 5 to measure PM emissions from furnaces. We are also amending the NESHAP to allow owners or operators to measure PM emissions from furnaces using either EPA Method 5 or Method 29. We are finalizing, as proposed, the addition of EPA Method 318 as an alternative test method for measuring the concentration of phenol and methanol and EPA Method 308 as an alternative test method for measuring the concentration of methanol. We are finalizing, as proposed in the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22402), the replacement of a minimum sampling time of 1 hour with the specification to collect 10 spectra when using EPA Method 318. When using Method 316 to measure formaldehyde, we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement to collect a minimum sampling volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm); however, we are not finalizing the E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations proposed minimum sampling run time of 2 hours. We are also finalizing editorial changes to the performance testing and compliance procedures to specify formaldehyde, methanol, phenol (rather than the surrogate, formaldehyde), chromium, HCl, and HF. Additionally, for existing sources we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limit for furnaces no later than July 31, 2017 and annually thereafter; to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit for furnaces no later than July 31, 2017 and every 5 years thereafter; and to demonstrate compliance with the phenol, formaldehyde and methanol emission limits for FA lines no later than July 31, 2017 and every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing the requirement for new sources to comply with the emission limits on July 29, 2015, or upon the initial startup, whichever is later, and to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for furnaces and FA 45293 lines no later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date. Following the initial test to demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limit, owners or operators must test for chromium emissions annually. For all other pollutants, owners or operators must conduct performance tests every 5 years after the initial test to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limits. Table 4 of this preamble summarizes the compliance test schedule for major and area sources. TABLE 4—WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING COMPLIANCE TEST SCHEDULE FOR MAJOR SOURCES Initial test dates Process Pollutant(s) Existing sources FA Line ...................... Phenol Formaldehyde Methanol. All Furnace Types ...... Gas-fired Furnace ...... 2 years after publication of the final rule amendments in the Federal Register. Within 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, or 180 days after initial startup, whichever is later. PM Chromium compounds We are finalizing, as proposed, the clarification that 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN applies to FA lines, regardless of what products are manufactured on the FA line. In this action, we are finalizing, as proposed, definitions for ‘‘gas-fired glass-melting furnace’’ and ‘‘incinerator.’’ We are also revising the definition of ‘‘new source’’ and the trigger date for the requirement to submit notifications of intent to construct/reconstruct an affected source to reflect the date of the initial RTR proposal (November 25, 2011). We are finalizing, as proposed, the monitoring requirement for furnaces and FA lines to provide flexibility in establishing an appropriate monitoring parameter. We are also making minor corrections to the citations in Table 1 (part 63 General Provision applicability table) to reflect the final amendments in this action, and the revisions that have been made to the General Provisions since 1999. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 New sources G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? The revisions to the MACT standards for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category being promulgated in this action are effective on July 29, 2015. The compliance date for existing sources is July 31, 2017. New sources must comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, July 29, 2015, or upon initial startup, whichever is later. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 Subsequent testing frequency Every 5 years thereafter. Annually thereafter. The effective and compliance dates finalized in this action are consistent with the dates we presented in the 2014 supplemental proposal. H. What is the status of the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT standard amendments under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS Manufacturing Lines? We are not finalizing the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS manufacturing lines in this final action. On November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72791), we proposed to discontinue use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol and we proposed formaldehyde, methanol and phenol emission limits for RS and FA lines. On April 15, 2013 (72 FR 22387), we proposed revised emission limits for RS lines based on clarification of test data received from the industry during the comment period. We explained that since the 1999 promulgation of the MACT standards, many companies had discontinued the use of formaldehyde. However, they did not distinguish between the bonded lines that still used formaldehyde and those that did not. We had, therefore, included some data for HAP-free lines along with the data for lines still using formaldehyde when we developed the emission limits proposed in the November 2011 proposal (78 FR 22387). In the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68203), we also proposed revised formaldehyde, PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 methanol, and phenol emission limits for new RS lines as a result of our updated approach for evaluating limited datasets (79 FR 68023–24). The EPA is not finalizing these proposed CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) standards in this action because we believe the data that we relied on in proposing these standards are not sufficiently related to current operations or emissions from RS bonded lines. The emissions and process data available to EPA were collected beginning in 2003. As previously explained, since that time, sources have phased out the use of a phenol/formaldehyde binder from approximately 95 percent of the lines on which it was previously used. We have also found out that sources often can no longer either identify the products that were tested or on the lines on which those products had been manufactured. Moreover, when sources can identify the products that were tested, those products are now produced using a HAP-free binder, and the product lines that now operate using a phenol/ formaldehyde binder do not bear similarity in size, end use, production rate or loss on ignition (LOI) percent to the tested product line. As a result, the data no longer represent current industry conditions, most notably the significant reduction in the use of phenol/formaldehyde binders in wool fiberglass manufacturing. Consequently, we have issued a CAA section 114 ICR to wool fiberglass facilities to obtain updated formaldehyde, methanol, and E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45294 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations phenol emissions and process data for RS manufacturing lines. I. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP? The requirements for electronic reporting of performance test data for wool fiberglass manufacturing major sources are the same as the requirements for the mineral wool production source category. See section III.G of this preamble for a description of the requirements. VI. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)? For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA’s rationale for the final decisions and amendments and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA’s responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042. A. Residual Risk Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources) mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)? Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted a residual risk assessment and presented the results of this assessment, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the November 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 72801). Based on the inhalation risk assessment, we estimated that the MIR could be as high as 40-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up to 60-in-1 million due to MACT-allowable emissions, mainly due to formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium emissions. We stated that the risk levels due to actual and MACT-allowable emissions were acceptable; however, we proposed an emission limit for total chromium (0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled) in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In the April 2013 supplemental proposal, we revised the draft risk assessment to reflect new emissions data for hexavalent chromium that we collected from all glass-melting furnaces available for testing in response to our October 28, 2011, CAA section 114 ICR. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 These revisions reduced our estimate of risk from actual emissions when compared to the risk assessment conducted for the November 2011 proposal. The risk from wool fiberglass manufacturing was driven by formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium. The MIR for actual baseline emissions decreased from 40-in-1million to 20-in-1 million (formaldehyde), with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the REL and at 2 for the AEGL–1 (formaldehyde). The maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions remained at 0.2 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. In the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we presented the revised draft risk assessment to reflect updates to the model and model libraries and also retained the proposed emission limits for chromium compounds for existing and new gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. These revisions did not significantly change our estimate of risk from actual emissions when compared to the risk assessment conducted for the April 2013 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68020). The risk from wool fiberglass manufacturing was driven by formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium and continued to be well within a level we consider to be acceptable. The MIR for actual baseline emissions remained 20-in-1 million (formaldehyde), with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the REL and decreased from 2 to 1 for the AEGL–1 (formaldehyde). The maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions decreased from 0.2 to 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. Overall, we considered the risk to be acceptable. Based on information provided by the industry, 95 percent of the RS lines no longer use phenol-formaldehyde binders and are no longer major sources. However, this phase out is not reflected in the facility file data on which the risk assessment was based. Throughout the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry, these binders continued to be phased out as this rule was developed. The risk analysis we conducted for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category overstates the risk because of the continuing phase out. Therefore, we believe the risks from wool fiberglass manufacturing from actual emissions are lower than the risks we estimated. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 2. How did the risk review change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)? The baseline risk assessment has not changed since the November 2014 supplemental proposal. The MIR based on actual emissions remains at 20-in-1 million with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the REL and 1 for the AEGL–1 (formaldehyde). The maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions is 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. The MIR based on MACT-allowable emissions could be as high as 60-in-1 million, which we believe to be a conservative estimate based on four factors: (1) At one time, there were at least 60 RS lines in the industry, (2) industry has stated that 95 percent of RS lines no longer use formaldehyde as a binder, (3) Industry has stated that there are only 5 RS lines left that use a phenol/formaldehyde binder, and (4) Title V permit records indicate that 20 out of a total of 30 facilities have completely phased out their use of formaldehyde as a raw material throughout the facility. We conducted a new assessment of the risks remaining after implementation of these final rule revisions. The revised assessment of post-control risks reflects the adjustment of the chromium compounds emission limit and the EPA’s deferral of setting standards for formaldehyde, methanol and phenol from RS lines. Specifically, the risk assessment takes into account the change in the chromium compounds emission limit for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces from 0.00006 pounds of chromium per ton of glass pulled to 0.00025 pounds of chromium per ton of glass pulled, the emission limits for formaldehyde at new and existing FA lines (2.6 pounds per ton and 5.6 pounds per ton, respectively) and the current emission estimates for formaldehyde, methanol and phenol from RS lines. The MIR for cancer after implementation of the RTR could be up to 60-in-1 million (equal to the current risk estimates for allowables) but, as discussed above, this is a conservative, upper-end estimate. Consequently, we believe risks are significantly lower than estimated and the standards provide an ample margin of safety. Emissions of chromium compounds are a secondary risk driver to formaldehyde, and the risk is 7-in-1 million based on current actual emissions. It is important to note that, E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations even though risks are acceptable, the health risks from hexavalent chromium emissions from wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities could be much higher in the future without a chromium compounds emission limit. To capture this scenario, we conducted an auxiliary risk analysis in which we assumed all wool fiberglass furnaces emitted hexavalent chromium at the same rate as the reasonable highest-emitting furnace. The results of the auxiliary risk analysis showed that, in the absence of a chromium emission limit and with furnaces emitting at the assumed emission rate, risk at four facilities is expected to increase over time to greater than 100-in-1 million, due to increasing chromium emissions occurring with furnace age. Therefore, we determined that the chromium emission limit in the final rule, which will limit the MIR cancer risk from hexavalent chromium emissions from this category to no higher than 3-in-1 million, is necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. Regarding chromium compounds, as discussed above, we received comments on the proposed chromium compounds limit that indicated that a newly-rebuilt furnace, which we believe is the likely compliance technology, may not be able to demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limit. The comment was based on one specific example from the 2012 test data that showed a 1-year old gas-fired glass-melting furnace emitting approximately 0.0002 pounds chromium per ton of glass. We reevaluated the proposed chromium compounds limit in light of information on this technology, and based on the data available, we have revised the chromium compounds limit and are now finalizing an emissions limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We conducted an assessment of the risk attributable to all HAP for each facility and determined that increasing the chromium compound emission limit from 0.00006 to 0.00025 pounds total chromium per ton of glass pulled has a minimal effect on the post-RTR risks because these risks are largely driven by formaldehyde emissions. Specifically, at the chromium compounds emission limit of 0.00025 pounds total chromium per ton of glass pulled, the MIR due to only chromium emissions for the source category is 3-in-1 million. The results of the risk assessment are presented in more detail in the final residual risk memorandum titled ‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the June 2015 Final Rule,’’ which can be found in VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 1042. 3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources), and what are our responses? We received comments in support of and against our proposed determination of risk acceptability, ample margin of safety analysis, and requirement for additional control. A summary of these comments and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–1042). The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the risk assessment for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and our responses to these comments. Additional comments on the risk assessment and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–1042). Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should find the acute health risk from wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities to be unacceptable. The commenter noted that the EPA’s assessment in the November 2011 proposal found an acute risk of 30 for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and argued that the EPA should find the health risk to be unacceptable under CAA section 112(f)(2) based on this acute risk. The commenter stated that the EPA has a presumption that an HQ below 1 is safe, that the EPA has stated that a HQ less than or equal to 1 indicates that adverse noncancer effects are not likely to occur, and that exposure below that threshold level is safe. The commenter added that the EPA did not adequately explain why the formaldehyde risks were found to be acceptable although they are 30 times higher than the threshold. The commenter asserted that, by applying the outdated integrated risk information system (IRIS) dose-response values in determining formaldehyde inhalation exposure risk, the EPA is not basing the proposed rule on the best available science. The commenter urged the EPA to revise the proposed rule to accurately convey the best available science and a weight-of-evidence approach in compliance with the Information Quality Act (IQA) Guidelines and Executive Order 13563. In particular, the commenter argued that the EPA should reject the 1991 IRIS dose-response value and incorporate the Chemical Industry Institute of PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45295 Toxicology (CIIT, 1999) cancer doseresponse value for formaldehyde. Response: As discussed in sections V.A and VI.A of this preamble, we revised the risk assessment for wool fiberglass facilities for the November 2014 supplemental proposal. For wool fiberglass facilities, the MIR for actual baseline emissions remained 20-in-1 million (formaldehyde), with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the REL and decreased from 2 to 1 for the AEGL–1 (formaldehyde). The maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions decreased from 0.2 to 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. We found that the risks were acceptable. We note that the acute risks are based on an REL value, which is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for specified exposure duration.’’ Moreover, we note that the acute risk assessment is a worst-case assessment. For example, the acute assessment assumes worst-case meteorology, peak emissions and an individual being located at the site of maximum concentration for an hour. Taken together, the EPA does not believe that in all RTR reviews, HQ values must be less than or equal to 1. Rather, the EPA finds that acute risks must be judged on a case-by-case basis in the context of all the available health evidence and risk analyses. To better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) peer review of the EPA’s RTR risk assessment methodologies,6 we generally examine a wider range of available acute health metrics (e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the SAB’s acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in chronic reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays 7 for HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values (i.e., occupational and 6 The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is available at: https:// yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 7 U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/061, and available on-line at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 45296 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations international values) to provide a more complete risk characterization. The EPA uses AEGL and Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) values (when available) in conjunction with REL values (again, when available) to characterize potential acute health risks. However, it is often the case that HAP do not have all of these acute reference benchmark values. In these instances, the EPA describes the potential acute health risk in relation to the acute health values that are available. Importantly, when interpreting the results, we are careful to identify the benchmark being used and the health implications associated with any specific benchmark being exceeded. By definition, the acute California reference exposure level (CA–REL) represents a health-protective level of exposure, with no risk anticipated below those levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the health risk from higher-level exposures is unknown. Therefore, when a CA–REL is exceeded and an AEGL–1 or ERPG–1 level is available (i.e., levels at which mild effects are anticipated in the general public for a single exposure), we have used them as a second comparative measure. Historically, comparisons of the estimated maximum off-site 1-hour exposure levels have not been typically made to occupational levels for the purpose of characterizing public health risks in RTR assessments. This is because occupational ceiling values are not generally considered protective for the general public since they are designed to protect the worker population (presumed healthy adults) for short duration (i.e., less than 15 minute) increases in exposure. As a result, for most chemicals, the 15minute occupational ceiling values are set at levels higher than a 1-hour AEGL– 1, making comparisons to them irrelevant unless the AEGL–1 or ERPG– 1 levels are exceeded. Such is not the case when comparing the available acute inhalation health effect reference values for formaldehyde.8 Thus, while this means we cannot rule out the potential for acute concerns due to formaldehyde emissions from these facilities, we note that the worstcase acute HQs are based on conservative assumptions (e.g., worstcase meteorology coinciding with peak short-term 1-hour emissions from each emission point, with a person located at the point of maximum concentration 8 U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–09/061, and available on-line at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 during that hour). We also note that, as stated earlier, the emissions estimates for formaldehyde are expected to be an overestimate of emissions, further supporting our determination that acute risks are not a significant concern for the wool fiberglass source category. Comment: One commenter stated that AEGLs or ERPGs were developed for accidental release emergency planning and are not appropriate for assessing daily human exposure to toxic air pollutants because they do not include adequate safety and uncertainty factors. The commenter stated that they are not meant to evaluate the acute impacts from routine emissions that occur over the life of a facility and cannot be relied upon to protect the public from the adverse effects of exposure to toxic air pollutants. The commenter concluded that their use is not appropriate in risk assessments and urged the EPA to increase its reliance on the California RELs to address acute exposures in the residual risk assessments. Response: The EPA does not rely exclusively upon AEGL or ERPG values for assessment of acute exposures. Rather, the EPA’s approach is to consider various acute health effect reference values (see the preamble to the November 2011 proposal (76 FR 72781)), including the California REL, in assessing the potential for risks from acute exposures. To better characterize the potential health risks associated with estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the SAB’s peer review of the EPA’s RTR risk assessment methodologies, we generally examine a wider range of available acute health metrics (e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the SAB’s acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in chronic reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays for HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values (i.e., occupational and international values) to provide a more complete risk characterization. As discussed in the preamble to the November 2011 proposal, the exposure guidelines the EPA considers depends on which exposure guidelines are available for the various HAP emitted. The EPA uses AEGL and ERPG values (when available) in conjunction with REL values (when available) to characterize potential acute health risks. However, it is often the case that HAP do not have all of these acute reference benchmark values. In these instances, the EPA describes the potential acute PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 health risk in relation to the acute health values that are available. Importantly, when interpreting the results, we are careful to identify the benchmark being used and the health implications associated with any specific benchmark being exceeded. Comment: According to one commenter, the EPA‘s multipathway risk assessment fell short because the EPA did not use ‘‘allowable’’ emissions for this assessment and the proposed rule shows multipathway risks that are 60 times greater than the EPA’s threshold. The commenter stated that the EPA acknowledged in its 2014 risk assessment that the emissions allowed by the standard may be up to 3 times greater than actual emissions for phenol, methanol, and formaldehyde, such that the HQ of 30 could be 3 times higher based on allowable emissions. The commenter stated that by using actual emissions, the EPA’s analysis is likely to be an underestimate of the health risks from multipathway routes of exposure. The commenter supports the EPA’s use of ‘‘allowable’’ as well as ‘‘actual’’ emissions to assess inhalation risk. Response: Consistent with previous risk assessments, the EPA considers both allowable and actual emissions in assessing chronic risks under CAA section 112(f)(2) (See, e.g., National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 2005); proposed and final National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76603, December 21, 2006). This approach is both reasonable and consistent with the flexibility inherent in the Benzene NESHAP framework for assessing acceptable risk and ample margin of safety, as developed in the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). As a general matter, modeling allowable emission levels is inherently reasonable since this reflects the maximum level sources could emit and still comply with national emission standards. But, it is also reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available, in the acceptable risk and ample margin of safety analyses. See National Emission Standards for Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19992, 19998, April 15, 2005). The commenter claims that limiting our review to actual emissions would be inconsistent with the applicability section of Part 63 rules. As explained, however, we did not limit our review to actual emissions. The commenter also urged the agency to rely on allowable emissions for the purpose of our acute assessment. The E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations use of allowable emissions was not considered due to the conservative assumptions used to gauge worst-case potential acute health effects. The conservative assumptions built into the acute health risk screening analysis include: (1) Use of peak 1-hour emissions that are, on average, 10 times the annual average 1-hour emission rates; (2) that all emission points experience peak emissions concurrently; (3) worst-case meteorology (from 1 year of local meteorology); and (4) that a person is located downwind at the point of maximum impact during this same 1hour period. Thus, performing an acute screen based on allowable emissions would be overly conservative and at best, of questionable utility to decision makers. Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA does not have authority to consider ‘‘total facility’’ emissions in conducting the residual risk assessments for a given source category. The commenter argued that it would be impossible for the EPA to fulfill its unambiguous obligation for CAA section 112(f) standards to protect public health with an ample margin of safety in cases where facilities contain sources in a category where the 8-year deadline for conducting the CAA section 112(f) risk review precedes the adoption of MACT standards for other sources at the facilities. One commenter added that CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) requires EPA to promulgate standards on a source category basis. Another commenter continued that this provision unambiguously requires the CAA section 112(f) risk assessment to be focused exclusively on ‘‘emissions from a source in the category or subcategory,’’ asserting that the EPA does not have authority to consider emissions from any sources other than those in the source category or subcategory under review at that time. Response: We disagree that examining facility-wide risk in a risk assessment conducted under CAA section 112(f) exceeds the EPA’s authority. The development of facility-wide risk estimates provides additional information about the potential cumulative risks in the vicinity of the RTR sources, as one means of informing potential risk-based decisions about the RTR source category in question. While we recognize that, because these risk estimates were derived from facilitywide emissions estimates which have not generally been subjected to the same level of engineering review as the source category emission estimates, they may be less certain than our risk estimates for the source category in question, they VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 remain important for providing context as long as their uncertainty is taken into consideration. Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of the two-step process for developing standards to address residual risk and interpret ‘‘acceptable risk’’ and ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ as developed in the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). In the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA rejected approaches that would have mandated consideration of background levels of pollution in assessing the acceptability of risk, concluding that ‘‘. . . comparison of acceptable risk should not be associated with levels in polluted urban air. With respect to considering other sources of risk from benzene exposure and determining the acceptable risk level for all exposures to benzene, the EPA considers this inappropriate because only the risk associated with the emissions under consideration are relevant to the regulation being established and, consequently, the decision being made.’’ (54 FR 38044, 38061, September 14, 1989). Although not appropriate for consideration in the determination of acceptable risk, we note that background risks or contributions to risk from sources outside the source category under review could be one of the relevant factors considered in the ample margin of safety determination, along with cost and economic factors, technological feasibility, and other factors. Background risks and contributions to risk from sources outside the facilities under review were not considered in the ample margin of safety determination for this source category, mainly because of the significant uncertainties associated with emissions estimates for such sources. Our approach here is consistent with the approach we took regarding this issue in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) RTR (71 FR 76603, December 21, 2006), which the court upheld in the face of claims that the EPA had not adequately considered background. In our November 2011 proposal, we explained that for these source categories, there are no other significant HAP emissions sources present at wool fiberglass manufacturing and mineral wool production facilities beyond those included in the source category. We also explained that all significant HAP sources have been included in the source category risk analysis. We therefore concluded that the facilitywide risk is essentially the same as the source category risk and that no separate facility-wide analysis was necessary (76 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45297 FR 72783, November 25, 2011). Our evaluation of facility-wide risks did not change our decisions under CAA section 112(f)(2) about acceptability and ample margin of safety of the risks associated with the wool fiberglass source categories. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for the risk review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)? For the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category, we have determined that the current MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable level. We have further evaluated the cost, emissions reductions, energy implications and cost effectiveness of the total chromium compounds emission limits being promulgated in this final rule and have determined that they are cost effective, technically feasible and will provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects. For chromium emissions, we are finalizing the emission limit of 0.00025 pounds total chromium per ton of glass pulled for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, under CAA section 112(f)(2). This is based on our assessment of emissions from newly-rebuilt gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. Because commenters provided new information indicating that cullet use is tied to increasing chromium emissions from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, we are also requiring that facilities establish the materials mix, including the percentages of raw materials and cullet, used in gasfired glass-melting furnaces during the performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limit. Affected sources must maintain the percentage of cullet in the material mix at or below the level established during the most recent performance test showing compliance with the standard. If a gasfired glass-melting furnace uses 100 percent cullet during the most recent performance test showing compliance with the standard, then monitoring of the cullet use on that furnace is not required until the next annual performance test. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45298 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations B. Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources) mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)? As discussed in the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72803–72804, 72798), we conducted a technology review for FA and RS bonded lines and for furnaces that focused on identifying and evaluating developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category that have occurred since the 1999 MACT rules were promulgated. We consulted the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse to identify potential technology advances for processes similar to those covered by the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these technologies. We also requested information from facilities regarding developments in practices, processes, or control technologies, and conducted site visits, held meetings with industry representatives, and reviewed other information sources, such as technical literature, state and local permitting agency databases and industrysupported databases. For more information, see the ‘‘Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category Memorandum’’ in the docket to this rule. Subsequent to the November 2011 proposal, we announced that we had issued a CAA section 114 ICR to collect emissions data and other information on glass-melting furnaces in order to regulate area sources in a future action. This resulted in a near complete dataset for emissions test data on all wool fiberglass furnaces, with the only exceptions being furnaces at facilities that were closed or that were shut down at the time of the 2012 testing. The data also indicated that three gas-fired glassmelting furnaces had been rebuilt and retested, and we also had emissions test data for these three furnaces for the years before and after the rebuild. a. Technology Review for Reduction of PM From Furnaces For our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), for PM emissions from glass-melting furnaces, we identified advances in control measures for PM emissions. These included improvements and advances in control technology, such as application of ESPs, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 as well as developments in furnace design and the use of high-chromium furnace refractories that had been made since promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP. Our technology review included glass-melting furnaces at both area and major sources. As explained in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, the number of area sources is constantly increasing as a result of the definition of ‘‘wool fiberglass facility’’ in Subpart NNN. For example, in 2002, two out of 33 facilities were area sources, but by December 2012, 20 facilities were area sources (78 FR 22377). As also previously explained, there are no differences between the furnaces used at major and area sources (78 FR 22377). Therefore, we believed it was appropriate to consider all furnaces in the technology review, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In our November 2011 proposal, based on the responses to survey data regarding the performance of existing control measures, we proposed an emission limit of 0.014 pounds of PM per ton of glass pulled for glass-melting furnaces, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In the April 2013 supplemental proposal, in response to comments we received on our November 2011 proposal, we revised the PM limit for furnaces to 0.33 pounds per ton of glass pulled in order to be consistent with our intentions to set the new limit based on technology review. We did not propose any further revisions to the proposed PM limit in the November 2014 supplemental proposal. b. Technology Review for Reduction of Chromium From Furnaces In our November 2011 proposal, we identified refractories having a high content of chromium, and their use in wool fiberglass furnaces, as a new development affecting the emissions of chromium compounds from sources since promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP. We reviewed the use of chromium refractories (as compared to non-chromium refractories), as well as other control technologies, such as caustic scrubbers. We analyzed the technical feasibility and the estimated impacts (e.g., costs, emissions reductions, risk reductions) of applying these developments. We then determined, based on impacts and feasibility, whether it was necessary to propose amendments to the regulation to require any of the identified developments. We found that, while the furnaces and control technologies are generally the same as those used at promulgation of PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the MACT standard in 1999, there have been some developments in furnace design and preference in control equipment. We found that developments in refractory technology and in furnace design are inextricably linked. Oxyfuel furnaces were not widely used prior to 1999 in the wool fiberglass industry, due to a number of factors, especially refractory degradation in the wool fiberglass furnace environment. At that time, new technology of the oxyfuel furnace constructed using conventional refractories of that time (e.g., aluminasilicate, zirconium) limited the furnace life to 4 or 5 years. As a result, air-gas and electric furnaces predominated in the years prior to 1999. With the advent of new refractory technology, new furnace designs were constructed that could be expected to last longer. With the industry focus upon new furnace designs and technology, the research to develop refractories that could withstand high temperatures, thermal shock and corrosive materials yielded the development of new types of chromium refractory products that could be used for construction of the high-temperature oxyfuel furnace. As a result, the wool fiberglass industry began a trend toward oxyfuel furnaces constructed using highchromium refractory products, a trend that commenters noted is expected to continue into the future. This gives rise to increased chromium emissions as a result of both wool fiberglass raw material formulation (corrosivity) and associated refractory degradation (i.e., furnace wear). We explained the mechanisms of chromium emissions at length in our April 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22379–22382) and in our technology review memorandum. We therefore found that the development of new types of chromium refractories that could and would be used to construct entire gas-fired glassmelting furnaces for wool fiberglass manufacturing is a development that largely took place after promulgation of the MACT standard in 1999. We also proposed a total chromium compounds limit of 0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled for all glass-melting furnaces. In the 2013 supplemental proposal, we did not revise the chromium emission limit for furnaces; however, we explained that there were two general types of furnaces used in this industry: Gas-fired (which include both air-gas and oxyfuel furnaces) and electric furnaces (which include both steel shell and cold-top electric furnaces). We proposed in the April 2013 supplemental proposal to limit the E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 applicability of the total chromium compounds emission limit to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces for two reasons: (1) Electric furnaces do not have chromium refractories above the glass melt line, and (2) they do not reach the operating temperatures necessary to convert significant amounts of trivalent to hexavalent chromium. As a result, electric furnaces do not emit significant amounts of chromium compounds. We did not propose to revise the chromium compounds limit in our November 2014 supplemental proposal. However, based on comments received on our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we proposed that sources would be likely to rebuild the furnace rather than install a sodium hydroxide scrubber as previously proposed, due to revisions to our cost estimate for this control option. 2. How did the technology review change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)? We did not make any changes to the technology review for PM from furnaces since the November 2014 supplemental proposal, and we are finalizing the previously proposed emission limit for PM, which is 0.33 lb per ton of glass pulled. For chromium compounds, based on the public comments and information for glass-melting furnaces received on our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we believe it is necessary to revise our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6) for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. Data collected on gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in 2010 and 2012 show that three furnaces tested their emissions for chromium in 2010, then shut down or repaired, and then retested in 2012 using the same test methods and protocols. In each case, chromium emissions were reduced by about 2/3 as a result of having rebuilt the furnaces. In two of the three cases, the chromium emissions before the repair or rebuild were higher than the proposed limit (0.00006 lb/ton of glass). In a third case, a furnace that measured 0.0006 lb/ton of glass in 2010 was rebuilt and retested for the 2012 ICR. The second test measured chromium at 0.0002 lb/ton of glass, a level slightly higher than our proposed chromium emission limit. While we recognize that the rebuilt furnaces had different designs depending on the company’s objectives at the particular facility, at this time we believe the highest emitting rebuilt furnace was well designed for its VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 intended use. This furnace was rebuilt only one year before testing, at a cost to the company of between $10–12 million. As this is a technology review standard, we consider cost when evaluating the technology. We consider it reasonable to evaluate the technology based on the emission limit achieved by new furnaces, and we are increasing the chromium limit above what was previously proposed to account for this new furnace. The final chromium limit also prevents operation of another furnace that could emit chromium at the reasonable high-end rate of the highest emitting furnace, as characterized in section VI of this preamble. Finally, we evaluated the cost, using our revised economic analysis, of compliance with the final limit and found that these costs are reasonable. Specifically, we are revising the estimated costs of rebuilding the furnace as an option to comply with the chromium limit. We have determined, based on the revised costs and data regarding the level of chromium emissions that is achieved by rebuilt furnaces, that it is necessary, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), to revise the proposed emission limit for chromium from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We are finalizing a limit of 0.00025 pounds chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled. This is a higher limit for chromium compounds than previously proposed, because data show that this level can be achieved by furnaces that are rebuilt, while the previously proposed level was shown to be lower than the level supported by the data provided by industry. We explain our decision further in the responses to key comments below and in the Technology Review Memo for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category, available in the docket to the rule. We revised the cost estimate for rebuilding a gas-fired glass-melting furnace; however, we did not revise our finding from our technology review that rebuilding the furnace is an effective approach for reducing chromium emissions. We also note, from our technology review, that other options to reduce chromium from furnaces are available to wool fiberglass manufacturers. These include raw material substitution and installation of a properly-designed caustic (sodium hydroxide) scrubber to the outlet of the dry electrostatic precipitator (DESP). These other options are presented in more detail in the Economic Analysis, which accompanied the April 2013 supplemental proposal. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45299 3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what are our responses? We received comments in support of and against our proposed technology review. The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and our responses. Additional comments on the technology review and responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA’s depiction in the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72770, November 25, 2011) of high-chromium refractories and furnace control technologies as new technology developments is inaccurate, as demonstrated by the following evidence: (1) High-chromium refractories have been used in the wool fiberglass industry since the early 1980s; (2) the EPA was aware in 1999 that chromium was emitted from wool fiberglass plants, as demonstrated by the following statement in its 1999 promulgation preamble ‘‘The hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by the facilities covered by this rule include compounds of three metals (arsenic, chromium, lead) and three organic HAP,’’ 9 although chromium emissions (and all metal HAP) at that time were insignificant and PM was chosen as a surrogate for those low emissions; and (3) chromium emission reductions have been achieved by the industry since initial MACT implementation in 1999 without using any new control technologies. Response: Regarding the characterization of high chromium refractories as a new technology, chromium refractories for use in the glass industry have been a developing technology. According to information provided by the wool fiberglass and refractories industries as part of this rulemaking, significant problems with their use in the furnace had to be overcome before wool fiberglass furnaces could be constructed using them. For example, when fused-cast refractories started to be developed using high chromium materials, some companies discovered ways to manufacture those products that maintained the integrity of the refractory over a long time and in extreme temperatures, making these products candidates for trials in the wool fiberglass industry. At least two 9 64 E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM FR 31695 (June 14, 1999). 29JYR2 45300 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 major corporations 10 have developed high chrome refractory product lines since 1999, and they characterize these refractories on their Web sites as ‘new’ products developed for the fiberglass industry. Therefore, our characterization of these products as ‘new’ refers to the improvements in refractory and is not meant to imply that using chromium refractories, in and of itself, is new. Further, we noted in the November 2011 proposal that we identified ‘‘improvements’’ in PM emissions controls, not that we identified ‘‘new’’ controls. We acknowledged in both our November 2011 and April 2013 supplemental proposals that sodium hydroxide scrubbers are not currently used in the wool fiberglass industry for removal of chromium, but that these controls are used in metallurgical processes and in the chromium electroplating industry for the removal of hexavalent chromium. We stated in those proposals that we were considering applying scrubber technology to this source category; however, as discussed in the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68020– 69024), the technology basis for the chromium standard is more frequent furnace rebuilds, not scrubber technology. Moreover, as we explained in our 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22380), the type of furnace used to produce wool fiberglass at the highest emitting wool fiberglass manufacturing source was the type of furnace that is expected to dominate the industry in the future as a new and very efficient energy source. The oxyfuel furnace was not identified in our 1999 MACT standard as a separate technology. While we acknowledge that wool fiberglass furnaces are not ‘new’ technologies, the oxyfuel furnace is both new to this industry and its use is increasing. As the industry has 10 The North American Refractories Company (NARCO) and the Saint-Gobain Corporation Web sites advertise product lines of refractories that are 50%–95% chromium for use in the glass fiber and wool fiberglass industries. From NARCO’s Web site: ‘‘Wool and C-Glass makers rely on NARCO’s extensive line of chrome-alumina materials, the SERV and JADE brands, available in standard pressed brick, large cast shapes, and Cast-in-Place linings. Supplying the complete furnace refractory package required for this application is a strength of NARCO’’. (https://www.anhrefractories.com/glassrefractory). From Saint-Gobain’s Web site: ‘‘High temperature sintered chromium oxide based refractories have unequalled resistance against high temperature corrosion by molten SiO2-Al2O3Fe2O3-CaO/MgO slags and by certain glass wool compositions, in an oxidizing environment. SaintGobain Ceramics has pioneered and patented a unique range of chromium oxide-alumina-zirconia refractory compositions, marketed as . . .’’ (from https://www.refractories.saint-gobain.com/ Chromium-Oxide.aspx). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 commented, air-gas furnaces are becoming increasingly difficult to permit, while an oxyfuel furnace has no such restrictions due to its low PM and NOX emissions profile. We are not changing our assessment of the industry controls as having improved since 1999, and we are lowering the PM limit in the final rule from 0.5 to 0.33 pounds PM per ton of glass pulled. This limit codifies the current good practices and PM controls within the industry while not imposing additional costs to industry. Regarding the commenter’s allegation that chromium emissions were insignificant in 1999, and on that basis the EPA should not set chromium limits for this industry, we do not agree. The EPA has the responsibility to regulate air toxics under section 112 and to protect the health and environment surrounding these facilities as we are doing in this final rule. Moreover, due to source testing at the wool fiberglass industry, we have more information now than we had in 1999, and the industry’s technology (that is, both the furnaces and refractories used) has changed. Regarding the statement that, since initial MACT implementation in 1999, industry has reduced chromium emissions without using any new control technologies, the industry did not provide data showing that chromium emissions have been reduced. Comment: One commenter argued that chromium emissions from glass furnaces do not increase with age and that a relationship between furnace age and chromium emissions is not statistically significant. The commenter argued that erosion of the refractories is slow and there is no substantial increase in chromium emissions over time. The commenter noted that the EPA asserted that ‘‘when the glass-melting furnace is constructed using refractories containing high percentages of chromium, the emission levels of chromium compounds continuously increase over the life of the furnace according to the increasingly exposed refractory surface area.’’ The commenter noted that the EPA further explains: ‘‘It is our understanding that because of the corrosive properties of the molten glass, fresh refractory is continuously exposed to the molten glass along the metal/glass contact line in the glass-melting furnace process. This increases the surface area of the refractory that is exposed to the molten glass. As a result, when the glass furnace is constructed using high chromium refractories, the emission levels of chromium compounds continuously increase over the life of PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 the furnace.’’ The commenter stated that this is not correct. The commenter explained that surface area of refractory exposed to molten glass does not substantially increase, nor do the chromium emissions as a result. The commenter asserted that the slight increase in surface area as between uneven and smooth surfaces of new brick exposed to molten glass cannot explain the major difference that the one source exhibited on chromium emissions. In fact, the commenter observed, the testing results provided by the industry included furnaces in all stages of their life. The commenter argued that given the nearly constant surface area as refractory erodes, and the homogeneous chrome content throughout the brick, there would be no substantial increased chromium emissions over time in the manner the EPA asserts. Furthermore, according to the commenter, the erosion process is very slow given the lifespan of these furnaces. The commenter stated that the EPA reports that ‘‘[o]ne industry spokesperson estimated that 20,000 pounds per year of refractory are worn away from the inside walls of one wool fiberglass furnace and ducted to the control device before venting to the atmosphere.’’ The commenter contended that the context of that statement is that furnace emissions are going through control devices that already meet the definition of BACT for particulate and if this were normal for the industry furnaces, they could not have the long lives that they typically exhibit. The commenter provided a detailed statistical analysis to demonstrate that a furnace rebuild is not a viable control technology by using EPA’s data to show that a relationship between furnace age and chromium emissions is not statistically significant. Using the EPA’s data, the commenter also pointed out specific examples of apparent contradictions with the EPA’s conclusions, such as the data from one oxyfuel furnace showing lower chromium emissions at the end of its life than at the beginning of its life, and showing no change in emissions after a furnace rebuild. The commenter also points to data from another furnace demonstrating that emissions lessen with furnace age. The commenter contended that the proposed chromium limit is based on unproven technology, and that experimental and theoretical technologies do not constitute ‘‘available’’ or ‘‘generally available’’ technology. The commenter provided the results of various analyses to E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations demonstrate that there is no proven technology that can meet the proposed limit. The technologies represented in the commenter’s analyses include high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, Venturi scrubber, 3-stage filter with water cleaning, membrane baghouse, and caustic scrubber. The commenter described these technologies as ‘‘theoretical’’ and ‘‘unproven,’’ because they have never been installed at the outlet of a DESP serving a wool fiberglass manufacturing furnace. The commenter contended that a membrane baghouse is used to control emissions from the industry, but has not been demonstrated to achieve the proposed chromium limit. The commenter provided feedback from vendors of these technologies to demonstrate that pilot tests would need to be conducted prior to vendors committing to guaranteeing a specific performance level. The commenter also investigated the performance capacity of the sodium hydroxide scrubber and found that this technology is not transferable to a wool fiberglass manufacturing process. Response: We disagree with the commenters on the basis of direct statements, measurements and information on refractory content, production rates and furnace life received from industry sources. We issued a CAA section 114 ICR to all five wool fiberglass manufacturing companies and visited four of the manufacturing facilities in December 2012 to improve our understanding of the source of the chromium emissions from this industry. The results of these activities include source test data, information on chromium content of refractories used to construct different parts of all types of furnaces, and a deeper understanding of the properties of materials and technologies used to manufacture wool fiberglass. We were able to confirm our earlier statements presenting our understanding of this industry. Specifically, we confirmed that the furnace refractory are eroded and corroded during the life of the furnace both beneath the level of the glass, at the glass/metal contact line, and, in the case of gas-fired furnaces, above the level of the glass. We also learned that electric furnaces do not have the same temperature profile as gas-fired furnaces and, therefore, typically do not emit chromium at the level of the gas-fired furnaces. We also learned that oxyfuel furnaces are an important new technology both in terms of energy consumption and potential to emit SO2 and NOX, but have the greatest potential (followed by gasfired furnaces) to emit chromium. We have established that furnace age affects VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 chromium emissions, as documented in ‘‘Memorandum Chromium Emissions and Furnace Age, August 14, 2014’’ and ‘‘Explanation of the Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions from Gas-Fired Furnaces, June 3, 2015’’, which are available in the public docket for this rulemaking.11 We also disagree with the commenter’s statistical analysis and argument that the EPA has not sufficiently established that there is a relationship between furnace age and chromium emissions. We have based our conclusions on industry comments, furnace emissions testing, technical literature, and other available data. In the letter dated March 12, 2012, the commenter stated that ‘‘Fiber glass furnaces necessarily use chrome-based refractory products (see Appendices A and B, spreadsheets showing typical chrome content),’’ and that ‘‘Virtually all of the above-glass refractory in gasoxy furnaces, unlike other furnace classes, is chrome-based refractory.’’ In that letter, the commenter continued, explaining that ‘‘Since the advent of chrome-based refractory, insulation manufacturers have been able to extend furnace life more than 50 percent. Without these refractories, wool fiberglass manufacturers would not likely be competitive in the global marketplace. Moreover, there currently is no available material that is as good as and has the structural integrity of chrome-based refractory to handle the higher temperature and more corrosive atmosphere inside gas-oxy furnaces.’’ Regarding the use of chromium refractories in oxyfuel furnaces, and the continual increase in chromium emissions that result, the commenter added that oxyfuel furnaces have greater chromium emissions than other furnaces because, based on industry experience, the combination of furnace design, glass composition, higher flame temperatures, higher water vapor concentration, and an oxidizing atmosphere with increased concentration of oxides (filterable and condensable PM) can cause more rapid deterioration of the refractory in a gasoxy fiberglass insulation manufacturing furnace than in other types of glass furnaces. Regarding the comparison of operating temperatures of oxyfuel to other furnaces, the commenter added that, ‘‘One advantage of gas-oxy firing is the large reduction in NOX, due to the reduction of nitrogen from the air in combustion, and the reduction in the volume of flue gases. One disadvantage of gas-oxy firing is that the peak flame 11 EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042 at www.regulations.gov. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45301 temperatures are up to 40 percent higher than gas-air furnaces. The gas-oxy burner flame does not have to heat the added air components. In gas-oxy glass furnaces, peak flame temperatures approach 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas air-gas flame temperatures peak at about 3,560 degrees Fahrenheit, and cold-top electric melters are even lower due to having no heat input above the glass line.’’ Regarding the relationship of furnace temperature and glass chemistry to chromium emissions, the commenter explained that ‘‘with the reduction in the flue gas volume, the concentration of glass batch ingredient volatiles and water vapor in the atmosphere (and flue gas) is also much higher. The higher temperature of the gas-oxy burners can volatize the glass batch components more readily than in other furnaces. These glass volatiles that contain alkaline earth oxides reduce the temperature that chrome can be vaporized to as low as 1,832 degrees Fahrenheit. While the chrome must still reach temperatures of 2,700 to 2,900 degrees Fahrenheit to oxidize the chromium from the trivalent to hexavalent state, the potentially increased volatiles can contribute to higher chrome emissions. The 40 percent higher peak flame temperature of oxyfuel burners also raises the probability that available chrome (sic) will encounter the conditions that will convert it to the hexavalent state. Combined, these differences generate conditions that are more corrosive to chrome refractory and can create favorable conditions for conversion to hex chrome (CR206) inside a gasoxyfueled furnace. These severe conditions do not exist in the other fiber glass furnace classes.’’ Regarding the commenters’ assertion that wool fiberglass furnaces could not be eroded by the molten fiberglass at the rate stated by industry, we note that the range of furnace life and rates of erosion did not originate from the EPA, but from information obtained from the industry itself. Further, we note that at the rate stated by industry and the control efficiency achieved by fabric filters, that refractory degrading at a rate of 20,000 pounds per year and fabric filters achieving 99-percent efficiency would emit 200 pounds PM annually from the contribution of the refractory alone. Using industry refractory content of 95percent chromium, 190 of the 200 pounds of annual PM would be chromium compounds; 93 percent (177 pounds) of that chromium would be in the hexavalent state, which is within the range measured at oxyfuel and air-gas furnaces in this industry. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 45302 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Regarding the comment that there is no other technology available to meet the chromium limit, we note that all furnaces at existing area sources and all but two furnaces at existing major sources currently meet the final chromium limit. Regarding these two furnaces, the EPA has established that a furnace rebuild is an approach that existing facilities have used to reduce their chromium emissions for furnaces over 6 years old, as discussed in section III.D of the preamble to the 2014 supplemental proposal. Further, the rule requires sources to meet the emission limits, but does not require the use of any specific control device or vendor. Sources may use whatever means they choose to meet the limits, such as more frequent furnace rebuilds, using nonchromium or low chromium refractories in furnace rebuilds, enhanced baghouse operation, improved maintenance and alternative controls, and furnace design features, changes in raw material, or scrubbers. Comment: Two commenters asserted that the proposed chromium emissions limit would require technological controls that are not cost effective. According to one commenter, the installation of these controls would be economically damaging to the fiberglass insulation industry. The commenters cited the agency’s estimated cost of $300 per pound of hexavalent chromium removed if a scrubber is used to comply and the agency’s estimated cost of $12,000 per pound of chromium compounds removed if operations with highchromium refractory are rebricked with low-chromium refractory. According to the commenters, the conclusion that the proposed new chromium limit is ‘‘feasible and cost effective’’ is unreasonable and arbitrary. One commenter observed that the EPA’s cost-effectiveness values would be $600,000 per ton of chromium removed for scrubbers and $24 million per ton of chromium removed for rebricking, assuming either proposed compliance solution would actually be successful. As such, the commenters stated that the agency’s cost-effectiveness analysis does not support the conclusion that the new chromium limit is authorized and justified under CAA section 112(d)(6). One commenter claimed that the EPA’s conclusion is arbitrary because the costeffectiveness values are far in excess of the cost-effectiveness values the EPA has found acceptable in prior CAA section 112 cost-effectiveness analyses and the EPA has not explained why such high cost-effectiveness values are justified, especially considering risk. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 According to the commenters, fiberglass insulation producers provide economic benefits by adding manufacturing jobs to the U.S. economy, shipment of finished product to markets throughout the country, and export of product to foreign markets. According to one commenter, one reason jobs are being sent overseas is the existing regulatory requirements and concerns about the future regulatory climate growing even more stringent. If revisions are not made to the proposal as recommended by the commenter, many of the companies will cease operation and it is likely that foreign competitors will flood the market with substandard product. Response: We have reviewed the available chromium test data and information provided in response to our 2011 proposal, 2013 supplemental proposal, and 2014 supplemental proposal (76 FR 72770, November 25, 2011; 78 FR 22370, April 15, 2013; and 79 FR 68011, November 13, 2014) and we have revised our technology review, the chromium limit and our economic impact analysis for the final rule. The EPA is finalizing a chromium limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. Based on emissions data submitted in 2010 and 2012 by all wool fiberglass manufacturers on every furnace type, the EPA determined that this is a limit reflected by well-designed furnaces in this source category. As discussed in section VI.B of this preamble, all three of the furnaces that were tested in 2010, then rebuilt or repaired and retested in 2012, showed lower chromium emissions as a result of the furnace rebuild or repair. Of these three furnaces, two emitted chromium below the previously proposed limit of 0.00006 pounds of chromium per ton of glass pulled after the rebuild or repair. One, a new furnace, tested at about 0.0002 pounds of chromium per ton of glass, and had been rebuilt at a cost of about $10 million. Consequently, we revised our limit to reflect the level of chromium emissions that is achieved by a well-designed rebuilt furnace. Thus, the final emission limit is a level that has been demonstrated by recently rebuilt furnaces. We note that a key aspect of our changing the final chromium limit was to account for this new furnace, which measured chromium emissions at a level slightly higher than the limit we proposed. In our November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68012 at 68021), we presented a chart showing chromium emissions by furnace age. That chart indicates 0.00025 pounds per ton represents the level below which rebuilt furnaces operate and many gas-fired PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 furnaces operate below this level beyond their tenth year. We are aware of new developments in the field of chromium refractories that reduce the spalling and degradation of the refractory face. We consider many of these to be design features which a wool fiberglass company would consider when planning to rebuild a furnace. These data demonstrate that welldesigned furnaces (that is, furnaces designed and operated to minimize chromium emissions) can continue to meet the chromium limit as they age. This final rule does not limit the materials with which a gas-fired furnace may be constructed. Specifically, we recognize from industry commenters that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces used by the wool fiberglass industry will continue to use chromium refractories in their glass-melting furnaces. To help ensure that these sources are well-designed to minimize chromium emissions, wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces will be required to conduct chromium emissions performance testing annually. Two facilities are projected to need to improve performance. For these two facilities, the total capital costs are $21.4 million and the total annualized compliance costs are estimated to be $944,000 for furnace rebuilds and compliance testing. For all other major source facilities subject to the chromium limit, the cost of compliance will include only the cost of emissions testing ($10,000 per furnace for a total of $80,000). Based on the EPA’s economic impact analysis, which shows that the impacts to wool fiberglass manufacturers should be low, we believe that the compliance costs of the final rule are reasonable and will not be economically devastating to the wool fiberglass insulation industry. Regarding the comment requesting that the EPA compare the costeffectiveness of the proposed chromium limit (i.e., 0.00006 lb/ton of glass) to the cost effectiveness of standards finalized under other rulemakings, costeffectiveness values for hexavalent chromium are generally not comparable to values for other less toxic pollutants. We note, however, that the values now estimated for hexavalent chromium are now well within the range that we have considered cost effective for other highly toxic pollutants (e.g., mercury and lead) in past actions. CAA section 112(d) neither specifies nor mandates a cost methodology. We note that in Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit found the EPA’s chosen methodology ‘‘reasonable’’ because the statute ‘‘did E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations not mandate a specific method of cost analysis.’’ Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA’s cost analysis for furnace rebuilds in support of the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68011, November 13, 2014) underestimated the cost effectiveness by using the wrong costing method, incorrectly applying the costing method used, using the wrong discount rate, and considering costs over only the short term. The commenter provided the document ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) For the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries Economic Analysis Report,’’ January 2015, as the source of this critique of the EPA’s analysis. The commenter argued that the Net Present Value (NPV) methodology is not an appropriate method for calculating cost effectiveness of the proposed accelerated rebuild schedule if the EPA is evaluating the cost of a control as the single factor to consider, and also stated that they could not identify any EPA rules that have used this approach. The commenter suggested that a replacement cost analysis, as described in section 2.5.5.6 of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual,12 is more appropriate, and more commonly used by the EPA for this situation. The commenter provided cost-effectiveness results (dollars per pound of chromium emission reduction), as follows: Using a replacement cost methodology, the cost effectiveness was estimated by the commenter to be in the range of $366,161 to $527,334 at major source facilities and $67,808 to $97,654 at area sources; and using the NPV methodology, the cost effectiveness was estimated by the commenter to be in the range of $398,939 to $403,532 at major source facilities and $206,857 to $209,239 at area sources (each range represents the cost effectiveness calculated over 10 years versus 30 years). The commenter further contended that the EPA erred in applying the NPV methodology in that the EPA excluded from its cost analysis the cost of losing the residual value (1 to 3 years) of a furnace’s life, which contradicts the EPA’s NPV methodology. The commenter explained that the EPA calculated what a $10 million investment losing 7 percent a year would lose in 7 years versus 10 years, and then concluded that the difference was the cost difference of the investments. The commenter contended, however, that both calculations are incorrect in how the process of NPV is used for comparison: With a furnace re-bricking, the $10 million represents the investment that is consumed over the periods of comparison; and using the 10 years as a base case, the $10 million is consumed and has no residual value remaining at the end of the 10 year period. The commenter concluded that, therefore, the $10 million consumed with no residual value must be compared to a $10 million investment that retains a residual value at the end of 7 years, but yet must be replaced (i.e., discounting the residual value at the end of the 7 years to present value (‘‘PV’’) and adding that to the annual costs). The commenter also objected to the EPA’s use of a 7-percent discount rate because small variations in the discount rate can significantly bias the costbenefit analysis. The commenter alleged that the EPA chooses radically different discount rates for different regulations, generally providing no explanation for this variation, which appears arbitrary and capricious because it often chooses relatively high discount rates (between 7 and 10 percent) for regulations imposing future costs and low rates (around 3 percent) for regulations creating future benefits. The commenter further argued that the EPA’s cost analysis failed to look at the longer-term cost of 7-year rebuilds, beyond 10 years into the future. The commenter provided the results of an analysis that presented the impact over 30 years, which show higher costs for both area and major sources. Response: Regarding the comment that the EPA used the wrong costing method in the 2014 supplemental proposal, the EPA has reviewed the information provided by the commenter and, based on that information, which discussed the estimation of costs for changes in equipment that may occur as a route to comply with NESHAPs, we agree that the EPA’s replacement costing approach described in section 2.5.5.6 of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual 13 is more appropriate for estimating the cost of furnace rebuilds than the NPV approach used for the 2014 supplemental proposal. We received new information from the industry that they believed the replacement costing (RC) approach was a better fit for the situation and approach than the NPV approach, which is what we had used at proposal. The NPV evaluated the loss to the company from having to rebuild a furnace earlier, (i.e., at 7 years into the furnace campaign instead of at 10 12 https://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 13 https://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf. Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45303 years.) The RC approach applies the equivalent uniform cost method as defined in the control cost manual. This is different because it calculates a uniform, or equal cost across the time of the investment, and the NPV is not calculated in the same way. While we note that use of the NPV is not necessarily incorrect in this case, we agree that in other similar rules whereby this type of approach was introduced (that is, replacing a process unit before the end of its useful life, or campaign in this case), the replacement costing approach was applied instead of the NPV. Therefore, we agree with the commenter and have changed our cost estimation method to be consistent. We also revised the capital cost estimate for rebuilding a furnace to include the cost ($700,000) of transferring production to another facility while the furnace is being rebuilt, based on information provided by the commenter. Based on the revised cost-estimating procedure and capital cost ($10.7 million), we estimated the total annualized cost for rebuilding a furnace to be $462,000. Regarding the comment that the EPA used the wrong discount rate, the EPA’s use of a 7-percent interest rate is in accordance with OMB guidance under Circular A–4 and Circular A–94. This interest rate has been used in the cost estimates for all rulemakings issued by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) since Circular A–94 was issued in 1992 and affirmed by Circular A–4 in 2003. This includes the 2011 proposal for the mineral wool and wool fiberglass rules, and both supplemental proposals. In addition, the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual 14, a key cost guidance document prepared by the EPA and widely used in the Agency as a basis for cost estimation that has been available in its current edition since 2003, discusses the use of the 7-percent interest rate for rulemakings at length. The adherence by OAQPS to OMB guidance with regards to annualizing capital costs in its rulemaking has been consistent, and the information provided by the commenter on interest rates is not germane to the analysis for this rulemaking. Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA’s proposed chromium limit in the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68011, November 13, 2014) was not cost effective because the EPA’s cost analysis was missing the following costs associated with furnace rebuilds: New materials (refractory bricks); recycling and disposal of old material; installation 14 https://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45304 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations labor; maintenance; loss of production; and loss of labor force. The commenter retained a consultant to conduct a cost analysis of a furnace rebuild, and the analysis is provided by the commenter. The analysis concluded that the total investment of a furnace refractory rebuild is estimated to be about $28 million, assuming the EPA’s furnace rebuild cost of $10 million. The $28 million includes approximately $7.9 million for all materials, $2 million for installation labor, $60,000 for brick recycling/disposal, $8 million for additional maintenance, $9 million for loss of production, and $384,000 for loss of labor force. The commenter explained that the loss of production cost is based on 200 tons per day throughput, $0.65 per pound of reproduction, and 35-day shutdown period. These costs are listed in Table 2 of Appendix 2 of Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–1042–0348. The commenter explained that the additional maintenance cost includes maintenance of control equipment performed while the furnace is shut down during rebuild, as follows: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Maintaining safe and proper operation at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility requires that the facility maintain melted glass within the furnace at all times. In addition to the furnace operating continuously, all other equipment used in the manufacturing process, including air pollution control equipment operates continuously during normal operation. During a scheduled rebuild of the furnace refractory, a facility will use that downtime to perform routine maintenance on the entire manufacturing line. This maintenance requires longer downtimes to accomplish because it includes the support equipment for the furnaces as well as the major down line equipment such as forming sections, curing ovens, and line drives. This maintenance is done at this time to avoid the other operational expenses and product supply issues incurred when taking extended downtimes. Therefore, when a facility plans a refractory rebuild, it must consider the additional costs and logistics associated with the routine repair and general maintenance of the entire manufacturing line. NAIMA [North American Insulation Manufacturers Association] members estimate these additional costs to be in the range of $6,000,000 to $10,000,000, and include material (wear part replacements, pollution control device maintenance, electrical preventative maintenance, etc.) and labor to perform this maintenance. (Appendix 2 of Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–1042–0348). Response: As noted in the information provided by the commenter (see Appendix 2 of Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2010–1042–0348), the EPA’s capital cost estimate of $10 million includes material costs, installation labor, and brick recycling/disposal costs. We also revised the capital cost VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 estimate for rebuilding a furnace to include the cost ($700,000) of transferring production to another facility while the furnace is being rebuilt, based on information provided by the commenter. We disagree that the cost of additional maintenance for control devices performed while the furnace is being rebuilt should be included in the total capital cost estimate because these costs are not directly related to rebuilding the furnace (i.e., the furnace could be rebuilt without performing maintenance on control equipment). We also disagree with the commenter that the cost of lost labor force suggested by the comment should be included because we believe that workers would be reassigned to other duties at the facility (including activities related to rebuilding the furnace) while the furnace is shut down. Comment: One commenter indicated that facilities will need to install control equipment to achieve the proposed chromium standard and that the EPA has grossly underestimated the cost of this equipment for major sources. One commenter provided cost-effectiveness estimates (in dollars per pound of chromium emission reduction) developed by Trinity Consultants for various technologies: HEPA filter would be $18,500 to $24,100; Venturi scrubber would be $29,700 to $41,700; 3-stage filter after DESP would be $49,100 to $63,900. Response: The EPA amended the proposed chromium limit for major sources to be 0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled. Based on emission data submitted to the EPA in 2010 and 2012 by all major source wool fiberglass manufacturers for every furnace type, the EPA determined that all but two major source furnaces currently meet this chromium limit. For those two sources that will not initially meet the finalized chromium limit, the EPA determined that a furnace rebuild may be conducted to achieve the limit with no additional control technologies (e.g., scrubber). Note that the finalized chromium limit applies to gas-fired furnaces and does not apply to electric furnaces. Electric furnaces at major sources will not be subject to the final chromium emission limits, so wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities operating electric furnaces will not incur any additional costs for compliance with the finalized chromium limits. Comment: One commenter asserted that the EPA should subcategorize sources by furnace type because the chromium emissions test data indicate significant differences among wool fiberglass furnaces and furnace type. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 The commenter further asserted that non-oxyfuel furnaces should not have a chromium limit, and that oxyfuel furnaces should be further subcategorized to limit any applicable chromium emission limits to only those furnaces that warrant such limits. A second commenter asserted that the EPA should not subcategorize by furnace type. One commenter suggested the following list of subcategories: Oxyfuel, specialty, steel shell, air-gas, cold-top electric. The commenter characterized the EPA’s authority to subcategorize as broad and discretionary, noting that the CAA authorizes the EPA to ‘‘distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category’’ in establishing MACT standards, and that the EPA retains discretion in important respects in setting floors for MACT standards within the statutory framework in order to promulgate MACT standards that best serve the public interest. The commenter continued, ‘‘Congress authorized EPA to subcategorize source categories based on classes, types and sizes of sources which will result in different [f]loors for different subcategories.’’ The commenter observed that the EPA’s criteria for subcategorization include ‘‘air pollution control differences, process operation . . ., emissions characteristics, control device applicability and costs, safety, and opportunities for pollution prevention.’’ The commenter also noted that the EPA had incorrectly stated ‘‘[f]urnace construction and refractory composition were not factors that were presented by industry as having an effect on HAP emissions, and those factors were not used as a basis of representativeness for the resulting data set,’’ which contradicted the May 5, 2010 testing proposal letter sent to the EPA that categorized furnaces by construction and identified furnaces as having an effect on emissions. The commenter stated that this identification by furnace type in the May 5, 2010 letter is precisely what the EPA should consider when subcategorizing. The commenter asserted that no subcategories except oxyfuel furnaces should have a chromium limit, noting that non-oxyfuel furnaces (steel shell, cold-top electric, air-gas, and specialty) have extremely low to non-detectable chromium emissions and referred to three supporting references: A summary of the chromium content of refractories and chromium emissions (attachment 8 of comment letter), the test reports sent to the EPA as a basis for the comment, and a technology review of glass furnaces (attachment 10 of the comment E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations letter).15 The commenter stated that the technology review (attachment 10) concluded that oxyfuel combustion has a much higher potential for generating hexavalent chromium emissions as compared to air-gas or other types of furnaces based on the following conclusions: (1) Chromium emissions result from volatilization from the surface of chromium alumina refractories used at or above the glass line in the melting furnaces, and (2) the most significant variable with respect to quantity of chromium volatilized and to the presence of hexavalent chromium is the flame temperature. The commenter cited the study’s recommendations regarding subcategorization: ‘‘Because of the very significant flame temperature differences between oxyfuel and air-gas furnaces (5,035 degrees Fahrenheit versus 3,562 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively), there is engineering rationale to differentiate or subcategorize the furnaces by combustion type from a standpoint of emissions . . . Other furnaces, such as cold-top melters and steel shell melters, should be in any lower emissions subcategory’’ (attachment 10, p. 10). The commenter further asserted that the EPA should go a step further and subcategorize oxyfuel furnaces to regulate only those furnaces that pose a concern. The commenter stated that the other oxyfuel furnaces other than the CertainTeed Kansas City, Kansas facility (a total of 12 furnaces) do not pose a concern because they show low chromium emissions and do not approach a level of emissions that would trigger MACT applicability. The commenter recommended the following possible approaches for subcategorizing oxyfuel furnaces: (1) Establish a subcategory of the oxyfuel furnaces based on variation in demonstrated chromium emissions; and (2) establish a subcategory of the oxyfuel furnaces based on sources that can demonstrate a less than 1-in-1 million risk (using a risk-based source threshold limit of 25 pounds per year). Another commenter urged the EPA not to subcategorize the glass-melting furnaces used in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. The commenter supported the EPA’s recognition at proposal that it was inappropriate to subcategorize in the wool fiberglass source category, given that there are no relevant differences that distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within the category. The commenter argued that use of 15 Denis A. Brosnan, Ph.D., PE, ‘‘Technology Review, Chromium Emissions in Wool Fiberglass Melting Furnaces,’’ December 10, 2011. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 different types of furnace bricks does not qualify as a basis for subcategorization because sources of the same class, type, and size use different bricks. According to the commenter, the EPA may not subcategorize the source category into high chromium-emitters and low chromium-emitters because that would violate the purpose of protecting public health and the purpose of ensuring that the bestperformers drive CAA section 112(d) standards to become stronger. The commenter observed that bestperformers may have lower emissions, in part, because of the materials they use in their process or in their equipment. The commenter emphasized that the EPA may not lawfully subcategorize in a way that would place the best and worst performers into their own separate subcategories. The commenter asserted that the EPA should ensure that it sets standards for the entire source category that meet CAA section 112 requirements, rather than subcategorizing in a way that may allow a source to evade stronger emission requirements. Response: In today’s final rule, we are promulgating a PM limit under CAA section 112(d)(6) that is applicable to all glass melting furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing major source category. In our November 2011 proposal, we explained that in conducting our technology review, we found that most sources had reported PM emissions that were less than 10 percent of the current limit with several sources achieving PM emissions that were two to three orders of magnitude lower than the current MACT limit. We reasoned that new furnace designs and improvements in control devices operations, design, and bags since promulgation of the 1999 MACT were most likely responsible for reductions in PM emissions. As previously explained, the EPA may use surrogates to regulate HAP if there is reasonable basis to do so. In several rulemakings, we have used PM as a surrogate ‘‘for HAP metals because PM control technology traps HAP metal particles and other particulates indiscriminately.’’ National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d at 639. We continue to believe that PM controls would be effective for chromium emissions commensurate with the levels from both steel and electric furnaces used by wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. In today’s rule, we are also promulgating a chromium compounds limit under CAA section 112(d)(6) that will apply to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. As explained in the April 2013 supplemental proposal, electric furnaces PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45305 emit metal HAP including chromium at generally lower emission levels than gas-fired furnaces. For example, because they operate at higher temperatures, gasfired furnaces are constructed with chromium refractories at various parts of the furnace that are above the molten glass, including the crown. Temperatures above the melt in gasfired furnaces range from 2500 to 4500 degrees Fahrenheit, and these temperatures are sufficient to convert chromium to its hexavalent state. When chromium is available, as it is in the refractories above the melt in gas-fired furnaces, it may be converted to the hexavalent state by the heat of the gasfired furnace. Thus, gas-fired furnaces have the potential to emit elevated levels of chromium, even when meeting the total PM limit (78 FR 22379–82; 78 FR 22386). These higher chromium emissions do not occur with electric furnaces because they are constructed with either non-chromium refractories (cold-top electric) or steel in place of refractories (electric steel shell) above the glass/metal line. As also explained in our 2013 supplemental proposal, available test data from both electric and steel shell glass-melting furnaces consistently showed chromium emissions below the detection level of the emissions measurement method (78 FR 22379–80). Furnace construction and source test data also show that electric furnaces are not constructed using highchromium refractories above the glassmetal line, do not reach the temperatures necessary to transform chromium to the hexavalent state, and do not emit significant amounts of chromium compounds, as do the gasfired furnaces. In fact, all test data for electric furnaces show that chromium emissions were below the detection limit or were at least one order of magnitude below the proposed limit. Based on test data and statements from industry, we confirmed that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces are constructed using similar high-chromium refractories as one high emitting glassmelting furnace, that chromium emissions increase with furnace age as the refractories age, and that the type of furnace at the high emitter is an emerging new technology that is preferred across the industry where a source of industrial oxygen is economically available. Additionally, as also explained in today’s final rule, we are finalizing a chromium compounds limit, under the ample margin of safety step of CAA section 112(f)(2), that will also apply to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. As explained above, gas-fired (oxyfuel and E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 45306 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations air-gas) furnaces have the greatest potential to emit chromium compounds because they have the internal temperature, the availability of oxygen, reactivity, and corrosivity of the furnace environment that are typical of wool fiberglass furnaces. In the 2013 supplemental proposal, we explained that the elevated chromium emissions from gas-fired furnaces are of concern due to the toxic nature of the type of chromium emitted—hexavalent chromium—and the effects associated with its inhalation. For example, hexavalent chromium is classified as a Class A known human carcinogen (78 FR 22374). In the November 2011 proposal, we also explained that an auxiliary risk characterization analysis, to assess the potential maximum individual lifetime cancer risks in the event that all wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities emitted at the level of the highest hexavalent chromium emitter, indicated that if other facilities were to emit at that reasonable highest measured level, emissions of hexavalent chromium could potentially pose unacceptable risks to public health due to inhalation exposures resulting from stack emissions of hexavalent chromium (76 FR 72801–80). We provided a detailed explanation on our decision to set both PM and total chromium standards in the memorandum titled ‘‘Technical Basis for Separate Chromium Emission Limits for Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces’’, which is in the docket for this rulemaking. Comment: Two commenters predicted that the environmentally beneficial use of recycled mixed and green glass (cullet), and the businesses that provide it, will be adversely impacted by the chromium limit. The commenters pointed out that in 2008–2011, member companies used more than 5.4 billion pounds of recycled glass, and that they are the largest user of mixed glass and the only large user of green glass. These commenters surmise that some chromium may be emitted from cullet when it is remelted in the furnace, and that companies may reduce their use of green cullet to meet the chromium emission limits, an outcome that the commenters see as undesirable. The commenters added that the highest chromium emissions were measured from the furnace that also fed the most green glass cullet as a fraction of total raw materials into the furnace during the test period. One commenter noted that ‘‘not all chrome was retained in the glass (cullet),’’ and that green glass cullet ‘‘can be a primary contributor of chrome emissions.’’ VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 Response: As discussed in an attachment to comments submitted on the EPA’s 2011 proposal, the wool fiberglass ‘‘recipe’’ uses alkali or alkaline earth oxides, or boron oxide (borax) for its properties to terminate chains and sheets of silicon and oxygen tetrahedral in the glass melt.16 The result of this process is the formation of macromolecules. These macromolecules are kinetically unable to crystallize at low temperature and, as a result, essentially polymerize the glass. The comment attachment further explains that chromium enters the glass in wool fiberglass furnaces below the glass line, and goes into solution without having the potential for volatilization at glass-melting temperatures.17 Chromium enters the silicate network structure of the glass as a ‘‘modifier’’ of the network, and cannot form glass on its own due to thermodynamic constraints. Chromium is held ‘‘rigidly’’ in the silicate structure in interstices in the atomic network, and is present in coordinated complexes with oxygen.18 Further, based upon comments from industry, technical literature, refractory product specifications, and other data, we conclude that the chromium is not released from the cullet when it is melted, but from the chromium refractories due to several influencing factors: The glass chemistry, furnace temperatures, refractory wear rate and glass pull rate. For more information regarding this topic, see memo titled ‘‘Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions From Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces, June 2015’’ in the docket to this rule. However, we agree that the chemistry of the internal furnace environment may be influenced when green glass cullet comprises most or nearly all of the raw material mixture used in the furnace. This may be due to reaction of submetallic oxides (boron) with the chromium oxide of the refractory. As described in the comment attachment, ‘‘the basics of glass melting are wellknown, with fluxes acting on silicon dioxide or SiO2 to achieve a melted state that forms an amorphous ‘‘network’’ of atoms of oxygen and silicon with ‘‘fluxing’’ metals resulting in rigid solids at room temperature.’’ 19 The attachment concludes that, ‘‘Below the glass line in mineral wool 20 (sic) furnaces, chromium from refractory corrosion enters the network structure of the molten glass where it is held to the extent that it is not volatile at the flame temperatures of batch temperature within these furnaces. Therefore, volatilization from chromium refractories within mineral fiberglass furnaces originates at or above the glass line in the furnaces from the exposed refractory surfaces.’’ To summarize, according to the commenter, the minerals used to color these glasses is not re-emitted from the cullet when it is melted at the temperatures of wool fiberglass furnaces. According to the commenter, studies show that in order to volatilize chromium from glass, temperatures above 7,000 degrees Celsius (12,000 degrees Fahrenheit) (such as occurs at plasma processing temperatures) are required (Brosnan, 2012). Therefore, we disagree with the commenter’s assertion of the mechanism of chromium emissions from the furnace, i.e., that chromium is volatilized from green glass cullet when it is remelted in the wool fiberglass furnace. To the contrary, we maintain that chromium emissions are due to chromium refractory products in wool fiberglass furnaces. According to the literature and references, many of which were provided by the commenter, chromium emissions increase from the wool fiberglass furnace as a result of degradation of chromium refractories, which is influenced by the thermochemical interactions within the furnace environment. The rate of degradation of the chromium refractory in the wool fiberglass furnace is influenced by the thermochemical interactions which are influenced by the raw material mixture processed in the furnace and the use of cullet (of any color). We note that the test results upon which the final limits are based include tests conducted while the furnace was processing cullet in the raw material 16 Technology Review. Chromium Emissions from Wool Fiberglass Melting Furnaces. Brosnan, Denis A. Ph.D., PE. Clemson University, Clemson, SC February 1, 2012. 17 Chromium volatilization is only reported in the non-equilibrium melting of glasses at plasma processing temperatures, i.e., with flame temperatures typically reported as above 7,000 degrees Celsius (>12,000 degrees Fahrenheit). Brosnan, 2012. 18 C. Nelson, Transition Metal Ions in Glasses: Nework Modifiers or Quasi-Molecular Complexes, Mat. Res. Bull. 18 (1983) 959–966. 19 W. David Kingery, H. Bowen, and D. Uhlmann, Introduction to Ceramics (2nd Edition), Wiley (1976). 20 This report was attached to a comment to the November 25, 2011, Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing proposed RTR rule, and offers the author’s view on the technology review for wool fiberglass furnaces. We conclude his use of the term ‘mineral wool’ in this context may have been either an error (the author advises on both industries) or an inclusion of wool fiberglass as a sub-classification under the overall classification (see NAICS codes) of mineral wool. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mixture. While the technology basis for the final standard is more frequent furnace rebuilds, wool fiberglass furnace operators may choose among a variety of options, as explained in section III.D of the 2014 preamble. Commenters previously identified several options to meet the final standard, including raw material substitution, i.e., reducing the amount of cullet processed in the furnace. In addition to raw material substitution, industry commenters included the furnace rebuild and installation of a control technology at the outlet of the DESP as potential chromium reduction measures. Regarding the prediction of the commenters that negative environmental impacts will result from the chromium limits because green glass will be landfilled instead of remelted by the wool fiberglass industry, we disagree for the following reasons. First, glass recycling in the past was accomplished through the color segregation of glass materials: Brown, or amber glass for amber containers; clear, or ‘‘flint’’ for flint containers; and green glass for green containers. Recycling centers no longer segregate their glass by color, but instead separate recyclable materials according to type: Paper, aluminum, steel, and glass, where glass of all colors is combined together in a single stream. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter that vast amounts of green glass would be landfilled because glass recycling no longer segregates waste glass by color. Second, we acknowledge that while mixed glass from single stream recycling may be difficult to sell as a raw material, recyclers now decolorize used glass for resale into all glass markets (container glass in particular). One recycler (GMG) in particular shared a description of their process: ‘‘GMG’s basic technology provides for the de-colorization and subsequent recolorization of mixed color cullet in the production of glass containers. In so doing, it allows the glass manufacturer to use multiple colored cullet (amber, green, flint) to produce a single color glass, matching rigorous color and transmissivity standards required for many glass products. It accomplishes this in a manner that allows the glass manufacturer to replace virgin raw materials with a former waste product (mixed cullet). GMG’s Batch Formulation System (BFS) is a userfriendly software program based upon a GMG proprietary series of algorithms representing the full spectrum of furnace batch materials and their chemistry. The BFS technology, combined with the optical scanning equipment, enables the manufacturer to VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 further increase savings through the use of start-of-the-art optical scanner/feeder with advanced software that instantaneously reports color distribution weights and cullet chemistry in each batch sent to the furnace. Using these real time reports on the incoming cullet stream, the furnace operator can make formula modifications in chemicals and virgin materials to ensure uniform colored glass production.’’ Third, the wool fiberglass industry is one of several glass industries, including mineral wool, container glass, pressed and blown glass, and flat glass, that purchase glass cullet as an inexpensive and energy efficient raw material. Therefore, we disagree that glass cullet would necessarily be landfilled instead of used in one of any number of glass industries. Fourth, because chromium does not readily leach out of vitrified materials such as glasses, and would not further pollute the environment if disposed in a landfill, we believe that even if green glass cullet were landfilled in some areas, that would not result in a worse environmental impact than for chromium (particularly in its hexavalent form, as is most of the chromium from wool fiberglass) to be released into the air upon remelting. Finally, according to the commenter, the use of cullet is required by Executive Order, and wool fiberglass companies avail themselves of cullet as a low-cost, energy efficient raw material which is also used to increase wool fiberglass production rates due to the lower melting temperature and eutectic point (as compared to all raw minerals). Wool fiberglass manufacturers have stated that they would need to greatly reduce or eliminate their use of cullet in the oxyfuel furnaces in order to meet the proposed chromium limit (0.00006 lb/ ton of glass pulled), but that it is a moot point at the final chromium limit (0.00025 lb/ton of glass pulled). During meetings held in December 2014 and March 2015, industry stated that reducing or eliminating the use of cullet in the oxyfuel furnaces as a way to meet the chromium emission limit was no longer a concern to them. Furthermore, use of cullet in electric furnaces (which are not impacted by the chromium limit) does not seem to increase emissions of chromium as it does in gasfired furnaces. Therefore, this is not an issue for electric furnaces, which will continue to use cullet. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter that cullet providers will be adversely affected by these final rules. For the reasons stated above, we disagree with the commenter that there PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45307 are environmental impacts associated with glass recycling that should be included in the impacts analysis. However, changing the content and mixture of raw materials used in a process can be a viable option for regulated sources to meet emissions limits. 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology review? In our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), for PM we found that while the use of ESPs is not new to this industry, the use of the DESPs in combination with gas-fired furnaces is more prevalent. We found that, in general, baghouses are no longer used for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We also found that all glass-melting furnaces were achieving emissions reductions that were well below the existing MACT standards regardless of the control technology in use. Therefore, we determined that emissions controls on furnaces are capable of reducing PM to levels below those in the MACT standard, and, as previously proposed in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we are finalizing under CAA section 112(d)(6) the PM limit for new and existing glassmelting furnaces. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA provides that the agency must review and revise ‘‘as necessary’’ existing MACT standards taking into consideration developments in practices, processes and control technologies by affected sources. The ‘‘as necessary’’ language must be read in the context of the provision, which focuses on the review of developments that have occurred in the industry since the time of the original promulgation of the MACT standard. Thus, our technology review was for all glass-melting furnaces located at both area and major sources, since all area sources were originally major sources. As explained in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, the number of area sources is continually increasing as a result of the definition of ‘‘wool fiberglass facility’’ in 40 CFR 63, subpart NNN. For example in 2002, two out of 33 facilities were area sources, but by December 2012, 20 facilities were area sources (78 FR 22377). As also previously explained, there are no differences between gas-fired glassmelting furnaces used at major and area sources (78 FR 22377). Therefore, we believe it was appropriate to consider all furnaces in our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6). Based on public comments and test data, we found that the DESP achieves an average of 97.5-percent efficiency in reducing PM, a fraction of which is E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 45308 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations chromium compounds. Test data indicate that the majority of this chromium is in the hexavalent state, which is the most toxic form of this pollutant. We concluded that, as earlier discussed, the mechanism of formation, the increasing rate of emission release (due to refractory degradation), and the pollutant toxicity warrant additional investigation. Our technology review indicates that options effective in reducing the chromium compound emissions from the furnaces are available to wool fiberglass companies. We, therefore, conclude that it is appropriate for us to set standards for the fraction of chromium in the total PM that is still emitted from the DESP. Based on comments we received on the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we again reviewed the cost and control options and found using new cost information that the limit as proposed was not as cost effective as we initially believed. We reviewed the data to determine whether a higher limit than previously proposed would be more cost effective while still significantly reducing chromium emissions from wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We found that most wool fiberglass gas-fired glassmelting furnaces and all recently rebuilt gas-fired furnaces currently emit chromium compounds at rates below 0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled. Two furnaces located at major sources, which together emit 583 pounds of chromium compounds per year after DESP control, would still have to reduce chromium emissions to meet the limit. We compared the chromium emission reductions that would have resulted under the previously proposed emission limit of 0.00006 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled to the reductions that result from the final limit of 0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled. We found that the proposed limit would have reduced chromium from major sources by 567 pounds per year, and that the final limit reduces chromium by 524 pounds per year. These are comparable and substantial reductions in chromium due to two high-emitting furnaces at major sources. Moreover, the final limit sets a backstop so that another high-chromiumemitting, gas-fired glass-melting furnace cannot be operated again at a major source in this industry. We revised our technology review to reflect our conclusions on the most costeffective ways to meet the final chromium limit. We find that two approaches are likely to be used by industry to reduce chromium emissions from gas-fired furnaces. One approach is VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 to rebuild the furnace early (instead of a furnace life of 10 or more years, rebuild the furnace after 7 years of service) at an annualized cost of $462,000 per year, and the other approach is to replace one raw material (cullet) with another material (raw minerals), which the industry stated would result in lower chromium emissions, at an average cost of about $620,000 per year. Industry test data show that major sources will reduce chromium emission by 524 pounds per year to meet the 0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled limit. The cost effectiveness of both approaches is reasonable, and the option to rebuild the furnace has a cost effectiveness of approximately $880 per pound of chromium, which appears for most companies to be the most costeffective option. This cost is extremely affordably compared to costs for chromium control in other rules. For example, in the Chromium Electroplating RTR (77 FR 58226, September 19, 2012), we accepted a cost effectiveness of $11,000 per pound of hexavalent chromium reduced. We also note that section 112(d) neither specifies nor mandates a cost methodology. We note that in Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 D.C. Cir. 2001), the DC Circuit Court found the EPA’s chosen methodology ‘‘reasonable’’ because the statute ‘‘did not mandate a specific method of cost analysis.’’ Sources may choose a combination of these approaches to meet the final chromium limit: Raw material substitution may be used as the furnace begins to show refractory wear (and associated increase in chromium emissions), and then, toward the end of the useful life of the furnace, sources may choose to rebuild their process equipment. We discuss the technology review in more detail in the November 2011 (76 FR 72803–72804) and the April 2013 (78 FR 22379–382) proposals; in the ‘‘Technology Review Memorandum for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP’’; and in the paper titled, ‘‘Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions From Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces,’’ June 2015; which are available in the docket to this rule. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 C. MACT Standards for Pollutants Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate and Previously Unregulated Pollutants for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources) 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)? In the November 2011 proposal, we proposed to establish emissions limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from FA and RS manufacturing lines that were previously regulated under a surrogate, and previously unregulated HCl and HF from glass-melting furnaces. In the April 2013 supplemental proposal, we retained the proposed emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for FA and RS manufacturing lines; however, we proposed work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) for control of HF and HCl emissions from furnaces, instead of the numeric emission limits in the November 2011 proposal (see section V.D of this preamble). In the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we proposed revised emissions limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from RS and FA lines for new sources as a result of our updated approach to evaluate limited datasets. The emission limits for existing RS and FA lines in the November 2014 supplemental proposal remained the same as in the April 2013 supplemental proposal because the size of these datasets was sufficiently large that the limits were not changed by the updated approach. For the sake of simplicity, we discuss these pollutants together in the following sections. 2. How did the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category? We have not changed any aspect of the emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for existing and new FA manufacturing lines since the November 2014 supplemental proposal. However, as explained in section V.H of this preamble, we are deferring evaluation of emissions limits for RS lines pending collection of new process and emissions data from the industry. 3. What key comments did we receive on the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits, and what are our responses? We received comments in support of and against our proposed formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits for FA lines. The following is a summary of the key comments received E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations regarding the revised formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits for FA lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and our responses to these comments. Additional comments on the standards and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA is changing the applicability of the MACT standard for products made on FA manufacturing lines, as the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22370, April 15, 2013) indicated that the limits apply to all products manufactured on an FA line, not only to pipe and heavy density products. The commenter interpreted this to expand applicability of MACT to lines not previously regulated, which is beyond the EPA’s authority under section 112 of the CAA. In the commenter’s opinion, the limits for FA lines should continue to apply only to pipe and heavy density products, and not to any other product made on an FA line. Response: The EPA changed the applicability of the MACT standard for products made on FA manufacturing lines for two reasons. First, the EPA determined under this rulemaking that the EPA established the 1999 MACT floor as no control (i.e., no limit was established) for formaldehyde emissions from FA lines producing light density products (new and existing), automotive products (new and existing), and heavy density products (existing). As stated in the March 31, 1997, proposal for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (61 FR 15230), we divided FA lines into four subcategories: light density, automotive, heavy density, and pipe products. In that proposal (61 FR 15239), we noted that we did not establish emission limits for existing FA manufacturing lines producing lightdensity, automotive or heavy-density products or emission limits for new FA manufacturing lines producing lightdensity or automotive products because the MACT floor was no control and because the cost effectiveness of additional controls beyond the floor was not reasonable. The DC Circuit Court explicitly rejected this approach— establishing the MACT floor as no control—in both National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 633– 34 and in Portland Cement Association v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Therefore, the EPA has both the authority and the obligation to change applicability for FA lines to ensure that all sources of HAP are regulated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 Furthermore, we believe that the data for these facilities clearly support the establishment of MACT floors that assure emissions controls. The standards are based on data we received on tested FA lines. The commenter did not provide additional test data or information on ‘‘any other product made on an FA line’’ that would lead us to change to the emission limits previously proposed for FA lines. Second, in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, in response to comments on our November 2011 proposal, and consistent with our intent in the 2011 proposal, we stated that we were eliminating the subcategories for FA bonded lines because we believe that the technical or design differences that distinguished these subcategories in 1999 no longer exist (78 FR 22387). We stated in the 2013 preamble that, as part of rule development, industry provided test data that they claimed were representative of products manufactured on FA lines (refer to industry’s May 10, 2010, letter to the EPA, available in the docket). The 2011 and 2012 ICR response data indicate that only one company uses FA processes to manufacture wool fiberglass products. This is the company that provided the test data on which the limits for FA lines are based. In comments, companies asked that the limits for FA lines apply only to pipe and heavy density, and not to ‘‘any other product made on an FA line.’’ However, no other companies provided additional data that could serve as a basis for a change to the proposed limits for FA lines for any other products being produced on FA lines. The data provided by industry, therefore, indicate that this one company is the only company engaged in manufacturing wool fiberglass products on an FA line. Because test data exist for multiple products from this one company reporting these activities, we disagree with the commenter that the limits for FA lines should continue to apply only to pipe and heavy density products, and we are finalizing limits developed for FA lines that are representative of all product types made on FA lines. Consistent with our 2013 supplemental proposal, we are establishing standards at the MACT floor level of control for phenol, formaldehyde and methanol emissions from FA bonded lines. In 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court found that the EPA had erred in establishing emissions standards for sources of HAP in the NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, 67 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003), and consequently vacated the rules. (Sierra Club v. EPA, PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45309 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. March 13, 2007)). Among other things, the Court found the EPA erred by failing to regulate processes that emitted HAP. As required by CAA section 112, we must establish emission limits for all processes that emit HAP based on the information available to us. The data available to the EPA indicate that FA lines producing products other than pipe and heavy density products do emit HAP. Therefore, the EPA is obligated to set limits for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for any such FA lines. Comment: One commenter expressed concerns regarding the EPA’s proposed limits for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. Regarding the 2011 proposal, the commenter asked the EPA to consider the example of one company whose compliance test data indicate that after switching to a non-phenol/ formaldehyde binder, the level of formaldehyde and methanol for its RS line would exceed the 2011 proposed standard of 0.02 pounds per ton for formaldehyde for RS lines and the proposed standard for methanol of 0.00067 pounds per ton for new and reconstructed RS lines. According to the commenter, the data also suggested that an RS line at an existing source using non-phenol/formaldehyde binders would not meet the 2011 proposed formaldehyde standard of 0.17 pounds per ton for RS lines. The commenter also contended that the phenol limit of 0.0011 pounds per ton in the 2011 proposal for RS lines is so low that it cannot be measured with normal test times or with the proposed method if the process is performing close to the limit. The commenter concluded that the sources that switch to non-phenol/ formaldehyde binders would not be able to comply with the proposed standards without installing controls such as a thermal oxidizer, which suggested the proposed standards are inappropriate. The commenter objected to the EPA’s calculating the MACT floor using data for RS lines using non-phenol/ formaldehyde binders. The commenter asserted that non-phenol/formaldehyde binder lines are not representative of emissions in the affected units within the industry, and non-phenol/ formaldehyde binder lines should not be used to set the MACT floor for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. The commenter requested that the EPA confirm that all test data used to set new and revised limits are based only on data from sources running a bonded product, and to confirm that none of the test data used to set the new and revised limits are based on data from sources E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 45310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations running a non-phenol/formaldehyde binder or unbonded product. Regarding the 2013 supplemental proposal, the commenter maintained that formaldehyde and methanol standards are not feasible for certain RS lines without installing both nonphenol/formaldehyde binder and additional controls such as thermal oxidizers, because of the formaldehyde created through combustion of natural gas. The commenter specifically mentioned the formaldehyde standard of 0.19 pounds per ton for RS lines as being borderline achievable for nonphenol/formaldehyde binders in RS lines for existing sources. Regarding the 2014 supplemental proposal, the commenter indicated that the level of formaldehyde and methanol emitted by RS lines would exceed the 2014 proposed standard of 0.087 pounds per ton for formaldehyde and the 2014 proposed standard for methanol of 0.61 pounds per ton for new and reconstructed sources because of the formaldehyde created through combustion of natural gas. The commenter added that the data also suggest that the formaldehyde standard of 0.19 pounds per ton is borderline passing for non-phenol/formaldehyde binder on some existing sources. The commenter explained that formaldehyde is a by-product of natural gas combustion from burners used in the process. The commenter indicated that the proposed phenol limit of 0.26 pounds per ton is greatly improved since the 2011 proposed limit, but that it is still not consistently achievable. The commenter concluded that the proposed standards may not be able to be achieved even after switching to nonphenol/formaldehyde binders without installing controls such as a thermal oxidizer, which themselves will emit additional formaldehyde as a result of the combustion of natural gas to operate the control device. Response: We agree with the commenter that the data used to calculate MACT for major sources must not include data for RS lines that run a non-phenol/formaldehyde binder or unbonded product. As discussed in the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22387), in response to the comment on the 2011 proposed emission limits for RS lines, we recalculated the emission limits after removing the emission test data for RS lines using non-phenol/ formaldehyde binders, and we reproposed emission limits for RS lines. However, based on this comment, we determined that our proposed formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol limits for RS lines may not accurately represent the average performance of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 best performing sources. In 2015, after considering further information provided by industry representatives, we determined that the limits proposed in 2014 for RS lines likely included RS lines using non-phenol/formaldehyde binders and that the EPA could not determine (based on the 2011 ICR data) which data represented manufacturing lines that were using phenol/ formaldehyde binders, and which data represented manufacturing lines that were not using the phenol/ formaldehyde binder. As a result, we are not establishing in this final action RTR standards for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for RS manufacturing lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. We have issued an ICR under section 114 of the CAA to collect updated emissions and process information from the industry, and we will analyze the ICR data and evaluate limits for RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities at a future date. Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA should not recalculate the MACT floor for formaldehyde emissions and that the current MACT floor for formaldehyde emissions is still valid. The commenter contended that the EPA should not set a MACT floor for formaldehyde for the second time, explaining that (1) the EPA has not provided an explanation or asserted any rational basis for choosing to calculate a new MACT floor and standard for formaldehyde, as opposed to using its discretion under CAA section 112(d)(6) to make an appropriate adjustment without recalculating the floor and standard; and (2) there is no basis under the technology review to recalculate a MACT floor. The commenter stated that nothing in CAA section 112(d) suggests that the EPA is required to establish a floor under CAA section 112(d)(3) more than once in issuing or revising MACT standards under CAA section 112(d). The commenter pointed out that this proposal is not consistent with other RTRs, for which the EPA has taken the position that Congress did not intend EPA to establish MACT floors for a second time when it revised a standard. The commenter provided the example of the Coke Oven RTR rulemaking, in which the EPA stated its rationale for CAA section 112(d)(6) not requiring additional floor determinations because this would ‘‘effectively convert existing source standards into new source standards . . . The EPA sees no indication that section 112(d)(6) was intended to have this type of inexorable downward ratcheting effect.’’ The commenter further pointed out litigation challenging the Hazardous Organic PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 NESHAP RTR rule, in which the DC Circuit Court upheld the position that there should not be an inexorable downward ratcheting effect for the MACT floors (NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083–84 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). The commenter urged the EPA to consider the statutorily-prescribed factors in recalculating the MACT floor. The commenter stated that the EPA is conducting a MACT on MACT analysis by recalculating the MACT floor, citing NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083–84 (D.C. Cir. 2008), where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the position that there should not be an inexorable downward ratcheting effect for the MACT floors. The commenter agreed that the EPA should calculate the floor for phenol and methanol, since standards for these HAP were missing from the NESHAP. The commenter urged the EPA to retain the 1999 formaldehyde limit, saying that the 1999 limit is still the MACT floor and lowering the limit would be ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ and would need to be justified accordingly. The commenter noted that in the proposal for the 1999 MACT rule, the EPA found that the floor for FA lines making both heavy density and pipe products was no control. The commenter observed that the EPA had also considered controls beyond-the-floor at the time, but concluded that the cost effectiveness was unreasonable. According to the commenter, nothing has changed since this proposal for FA lines. The commenter noted that because no new HAP controls have been added, the floor is still no control for these products. Response: The EPA does not agree that CAA section 112(d)(6) provides the exclusive authority to address MACT standards when a MACT determination has already been issued for the source category. The D.C. Circuit Court has held that the EPA may permissibly amend improper MACT determinations, including amendments to improperly promulgated floor determinations, using its authority under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Medical Waste Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 425–27 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The absence of standards for these HAP is not proper. National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 633– 34; see also Medical Waste Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, 645 F. 3d at 426 (resetting MACT floor, based on post-compliance data, is permissible when originally-established floor was improperly established, and permissibility of EPA’s action does not turn on whether the prior standard was remanded or vacated). Similarly, the D.C. Circuit Court’s December 9, 2011 E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations decision in Portland Cement Association v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011) confirms that CAA section 112(d)(6) does not constrain the EPA and it may reassess its standards more often, including revising existing floors if need be. The commenter is, thus, incorrect in arguing that CAA section 112(d)(6) provides the exclusive authority to address MACT standards when a MACT determination has already been issued for the source category. Further, CAA section 112(d)(6) itself provides that the agency must review and revise ‘‘as necessary.’’ The ‘‘as necessary’’ language must be read in the context of CAA section 112(d)(6), which focuses on the review of developments that have occurred since the time of the original promulgation of the MACT standard and, thus, can be used as an opportunity to correct flaws that existed at the time of the original promulgation. The EPA is amending the 1999 formaldehyde MACT floor for FA lines because the floor was improperly determined. First, the EPA determined under this rulemaking that the MACT floor for formaldehyde emissions for new FA lines making heavy density products and for new and existing FA lines making pipe products were set at the highest measured value for each of the subcategories. As such, the 1999 MACT floor for formaldehyde was improperly set at a level achievable by all sources within the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and not at a level defined by the CAA. Again, as explained in the November 2011 proposal, when the EPA had in the past (incorrectly) interpreted CAA section 112(d) as requiring standards that can be achieved by all sources, the D.C. Circuit Court has rejected that interpretation. ‘‘EPA may not deviate from section 7413(d)(3)’s requirement that floors reflect what the best performers actually achieve by claiming that floors must be achievable by all sources using MACT technology.’’ Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d at 861. ‘‘EPA may not deviate from section 7413(d)(3)’s requirement that floors reflect what the best performers actually achieve by claiming that floors must be achievable by all sources using MACT technology.’’ Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d at 861 (‘‘EPA cannot circumvent Cement Kiln’s holding that section 7412(d)(3) requires floors based on the emission level actually achieved by the best performers (those with the lowest emission levels), not the emission level achievable by all sources, simply by redefining ‘‘best performing’’ to mean those sources with VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 emission levels achievable by all sources.’’ Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d at 881. (Emphasis in original). In revising the MACT floor for formaldehyde, the EPA is ensuring that the floor reflects the method established in CAA section 112(d) for establishing the MACT floor for major sources of HAP: (1) For existing sources, MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30 sources, as is the case here; and (2) for new sources, the MACT standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). Second, the EPA determined under this rulemaking that the EPA established the MACT floor for the formaldehyde limits for FA lines producing light density products (new and existing), automotive products (new and existing), and heavy density products (existing) as no control (i.e., no limit was established). Therefore, these sources of HAP emissions are unregulated under the NESHAP, which is an approach soundly rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court in both National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 633– 34 and in Portland Cement Association v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the EPA should retain the current MACT floor of ‘‘no control’’ and that the EPA’s recalculating the floor represents a level ‘‘beyond the floor.’’ Put another way, since the EPA did not adopt a proper MACT standard initially, it is not amending a MACT standard but adopting one for the first time. Consequently, the EPA is not barred from making MACT floor determinations and issuing MACT standards for formaldehyde pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Third, the EPA is removing formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol emissions, as supported by the commenter. The EPA may attribute characteristics of a subclass of substances to an entire class of substances if doing so is scientifically reasonable. Dithiocarbamate Task Force v. EPA, 98 F.3d 1394, 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1996). We no longer believe that there is a correlation and, therefore, reasonable bases, between formaldehyde and phenol and methanol. Further discussion of the EPA’s rationale for removing formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol emissions is provided in the preamble to the 2011 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45311 proposal (76 FR 72788, 72791, and 72796) for. Regarding the comment that this proposal is not consistent with other RTRs, we note that in several recent rulemakings we have chosen to fix underlying defects in existing MACT standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), provisions that directly govern the initial promulgation of MACT standards (see National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries, October 28, 2009, 74 FR 55670; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing Industry, April 21, 2011, 76 FR 22566). Regarding the comment that the EPA had not provided an explanation or asserted any rational basis for choosing to calculate a new MACT floor and standard for formaldehyde, in our 2011 proposal, we explained that the D.C. Circuit Court had found that we erred in establishing emissions standards for sources of HAP in the NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, and, consequently, vacated the rule. Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007). These errors included incorrectly calculating MACT emissions limit, failure to set emission limits and failure to regulated processes that emitted HAP. We explained that we were taking action to correct similar errors in the 1999 Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP. We identified certain HAP that we failed to establish standards for in these rules. We also explained that we had not established standards for phenol and methanol because they were represented by a surrogate (i.e., formaldehyde). With regard to formaldehyde emissions from the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category, we explained we were proposing MACT limits for existing, new, and reconstructed RS and FA manufacturing lines and presented these limits in Tables 4–6 of the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72791). We also explained that we had a ‘‘clear obligation to set emissions standards for each listed HAP.’’ National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits? As explained elsewhere in this preamble, we are eliminating the subcategories for FA bonded lines because we believe that the technical or E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 design differences that distinguished these subcategories when the original rule was developed no longer exist (CAA section 112(d)(1)). We are also establishing standards at the MACT floor level of control for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions from FA bonded lines. The data available to us at proposal were emissions test data from various products within the heavy density products subcategory only, and industry indicated that the test data for this subcategory were representative of all products manufactured on FA bonded lines. Since our various proposals, no additional source test data have been provided to support continued subcategorization of FA lines. We, therefore, concluded in the various proposals that the limits developed for FA lines were representative of all products made on FA lines and that further subcategorization was no longer supportable. As also explained in our November 25, 2011 proposal, we examined the 1999 MACT rule and found that it does not include emissions standards for certain products manufactured on FA lines which do not fall into the regulated subcategories ‘‘pipe’’ and ‘‘heavy density.’’ 21 The EPA has a ‘‘clear statutory obligation to set emission standards for each listed HAP. Although Sierra Club v. EPA permits the Agency to look at technological controls to set emissions standards, it does not say that the EPA may avoid setting standards for HAP not controlled with technology.’’ National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). In our review, we found that the foundation supporting the 1999 MACT standard for formaldehyde was developed incorrectly. Instead of being based upon the emission limit achieved by the average of the best performing 12 percent of existing sources, it was set at a level that was achievable by all existing sources. As explained in our November 25, 2011 proposal, this approach has been consistently rejected by the D.C. Circuit. ‘‘EPA may not deviate from section 7413(d)(3)’s 21 We divided the FA lines into four subcategories: 1. Light density, 2. automotive, 3. heavy density and 4. pipe products, but set standards for only two subcategories—heavy density (new) and pipe product (new and existing). We explained that ‘‘[b]ecause no controls are currently used, the MACT floor is no control and because the cost effectiveness of additional controls beyond the floor is not reasonable, the Agency is not setting emission limits for existing FA manufacturing lines producing light-density, automotive or heavy-density products or new FA manufacturing lines producing light-density or automotive products.’’ 61 FR 15239 (March 31, 1997). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 requirement that floors reflect what the best performers actually achieve by claiming that floors must be achievable by all sources using MACT technology.’’ Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d at 861. For the reasons provided above, as proposed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal and in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we are eliminating the subcategories for FA lines and finalizing emissions limits at the MACT level of control for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol, as shown in Table 3 of this preamble. D. Work Practice Standards for HCl and HF Emissions From Furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources) 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for wool fiberglass manufacturing (major sources)? In our November 2011 proposal, we proposed emission limits for HF and HCl from glass-melting furnaces. In our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we proposed work practice standards in lieu of numeric emission limits, under CAA section 112(h), in response to comments and our evaluation of test data from industry regarding our November 2011 proposed limits. We explained that in response to comments on the November 2011 proposed limits, we re-evaluated test data that we used to calculate the MACT floor for the proposed HCl and HF standards and found that most of the test data reflected values below the detection limit of the test method. Specifically, over 80 percent of the test results were values indicating that either HCl or HF, or both pollutants, in the exhaust gas stream were below the detection limit of the test methods. We, therefore, proposed work practice standards for the control of HCl and HF emissions from furnaces. However, in the 2013 supplemental proposal we did not specifically identify the work practice standards. In our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we noted that the source of HF and HCl in furnace emissions was cullet made from glass used in products such as cathode ray tubes (CRTs), microwave ovens, televisions, computer screens, and other electronics. Therefore, we proposed work practice standards that would require owners and operators of wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces to ensure that the cullet did not contain glass from these types of sources either by conducting their own internal inspection and recordkeeping program, or by receiving certification from their cullet suppliers. PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 2. How did the work practice standards change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category since proposal? In the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we explained the proposed work practice standards for HF and HCl in the preamble, but received comment that because the rule language did not accurately reflect the preamble language, that it left to interpretation the other sources of fluoride in the cullet (such as municipal water supply used to wash cullet). We did not intend that interpretation, which would be beyond the purposes of the NESHAP. In this final rule, we are correcting that deficiency in the November 2014 supplemental proposal, withdrawing that previously proposed rule language and specifying in the rule text at 40 CFR 63.1382(a)(1)(iii) the correct requirements, as previously proposed and as indicated above. 3. What key comments did we receive on the work practice standards, and what are our responses? We received comments in support of and against our work practice standards for HCl and HF emissions from furnaces at wool fiberglass facilities. The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the work practice standards and our responses to these comments. Additional comments on the work practice standards and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). Comment: One commenter objected to the EPA establishing work practice standards for HCl and HF instead of numerical emission limits without first establishing that ‘‘measuring emission levels is technologically or economically impracticable’’ (Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d at 883–84) or that setting work practice standards ‘‘is consistent with the provisions of subsection (d) or (f).’’ 42 U.S.C. 7412(h)(1). The commenter understands that 80 percent of emission tests were below the detection limit, but contends that this fact demonstrates that measuring emissions is difficult, not technologically impracticable. The commenter argues that the EPA must explain why it cannot use the 20 percent of the tests above that limit, taking the detection level into account, to set appropriate emission limits. Another commenter requested that the EPA remove all of these sources from the calculation for the MACT floor because data that are below the minimum detection limit (MDL) of the E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations test method (BDL) are unquantifiable and that using BDL data are likely to set limits so stringent that the best performing sources cannot even meet those limits. The commenter observed that the data for every source in the MACT floor ranking is BDL; and the majority of HCl data points are BDL. The commenter contended that facilities will have difficulty showing compliance with an emission limit that is based on data from testing that was BDL. The commenter cited a memorandum from RMB Consulting about relying on BDL data.22 According to the commenter, the EPA should only use values that are above the MDL (i.e., actual values) in calculating the MACT floor, and that the emissions floor must be determined by quantifiable data. According to the commenter, in the Boiler MACT, the EPA reassessed the proposed emission limits for dioxins/furans. The commenter noted that, as explained by the EPA, a large amount of the emission measurement used to set the dioxin/ furan limits were below the level that could be accurately measured. Alternatively, the commenter stated that the EPA could propose a work practice standard in order for facilities to show compliance. Under the Boiler MACT, the commenter noted that the EPA chose to regulate dioxins/furans by using a work practice standard. In that case, the commenter stated that 55 percent of facilities tested had dioxin/ furan emissions below the MDL for EPA Method 23. The commenter stated that a work practice standard would allow facilities to decrease HCl and HF emissions and be able to show compliance. In addition, the commenter stated that the EPA has made no effort to take into account reductions achieved as a result of the original MACT implementation as part of establishing the MACT floor. If a MACT floor is calculated, the commenter contended that it must consider what the emissions would have been at the time of the initial MACT promulgation in establishing the floor. Response: The EPA did not set any standard for HCl and HF in the original 1999 MACT rule and is rectifying that deficiency (see National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 634) here by establishing standards pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Sections 112(h)(1) and (2)(B) of the CAA indicate that the EPA may adopt a work practice standard rather than a numeric 22 RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. Memorandum, Comments on Proposed EGU MACT Rule, July 19, 2011, p. 18. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 standard when ‘‘the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.’’ We evaluated test data that we originally used to calculate the MACT floor limits for HCl and HF in response to comments such as this one. Industry conducted testing in an attempt to obtain data for the acid gases HF and HCl, under the terms of the voluntary survey. Emissions tests were conducted over three 1-hour test runs, which is, for similar industries, sufficient time to detect these acid gases when they are emitted. However, we found that most of the test data reflected values that were BDL. Specifically, over 80 percent of the test results were values BDL for both HF and HCl, indicating that neither HF nor HCl are present in measurable amounts in the exhaust gas stream for these sources. Because of the high percentage on non-detect test runs, we proposed work practice standards for HF and HCl in our April 2013 supplemental proposal. As explained in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, the EPA regards situations where, as here, the majority of measurements are BDL as being a situation where measurement is not ‘‘technologically practicable’’ within the meaning of CAA section 112(h). The EPA also believes that unreliable measurements raise issues of practicability, feasibility and enforceability. The application of measurement methodology in this situation would also not be ‘‘practicable due to . . . economic limitation’’ within the meaning of CAA section 112(h) because it would result in cost expended to produce analytically suspect measurements (78 FR 22387). As discussed in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22387, April 15, 2013), under these circumstances, the EPA does not believe that it is technologically and economically practicable to measure HCl and HF emissions from this source category. ‘‘[A]pplication of measurement methodologies’’ (CAA section 112(h)(2)(B)) means more than taking a measurement. It must also mean that a measurement has some reasonable relation to what the source is emitting (i.e., that the measurement yields a meaningful value). That is not the case here and the EPA does not believe it reasonable to establish numeric emission limits for HCl and HF in this rule. Therefore, in the final rule, we are promulgating work practice standards consistent with our April 2013 supplemental proposal. However, we disagree with the comment that in revising or PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45313 promulgating MACT standards, the EPA may not use current test data showing that sources may have achieved much lower emissions levels as a result of complying with earlier standards. ‘‘EPA acted lawfully, in resetting the MACT floors based on post-compliance emissions data.’’ Medical Waste Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 426–27 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In addition to the work practice standards in the final rule, control of HCl and HF can also occur as a ‘‘cobenefit’’ of conventional control technologies that have been installed for other purposes. These acid gases may be absorbed and neutralized when a scrubber is present. We, thus, believe that the work practice standards will result in the level of control of the exceedingly small amounts of HCl and HF present in wool fiberglass furnace emissions achieved by the best performing facilities in the source category. When testing for indications that a pollutant is emitted by a source, if the results are below the detection limits of the method, that means that the pollutant was not, in fact, detected. We do not set emission limits for all 188 HAP on the list in CAA section 112(b), but only for those that are emitted from the processes. We required sources to test for HF and HCl, and most (over 80 percent) of sources did not detect either of those HAP in their emissions streams. When this is the case for over half the sources in the category, we believe it is not appropriate to set numerical limits for such pollutants. Comment: One commenter stated that glass cullet cannot be guaranteed by providers or facilities to be ‘‘free of chloride-, fluoride-, and fluorine-bearing constituents,’’ as we proposed because (1) cullet must be cleaned before use and city supplied water contains chloride and fluoride; (2) non-glass materials in cullet (including coatings on the glass) contain fluorides or chlorides; (3) recycled cullet currently used by the industry may contain trace amounts of chlorides and fluorides; and (4) to meet product performance requirements, certain glass formulations require glass fibers to contain small levels of fluoride. The commenter argued that the proposed requirement goes beyond what the industry is currently doing to achieve HF and HCl emissions below the detection limit, and to achieve the requirement, facilities would need to cease cullet use and substitute with other materials. The commenter recommended revising the rule to require facilities to ‘‘maintain internal documentation that work practices are in place that E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations the cullet does not include waste glass from the chloride-, fluoride- or fluorinebearing sources mentioned above, or (2) Sample their raw materials to show the Record that cullet is reasonably consistent cullet entering the furnace does not with previous cullet used that has contain glass from these types of sustained low to non-detect HF and HCl sources. To demonstrate compliance, emissions; or Monitor chloride and/or fluoride content of facilities would maintain quality the cullet or finished glass to verify and assurance records for raw materials and/ maintain insignificant trace levels of or records of glass formulations emissions using standard chemical analytic indicating the facility does not process techniques; or fluoride-, fluorine-, or chloride-bearing Use feedstock of raw materials having a 12materials in their furnaces, and that they month rolling average of chloride content thereby maintain low HF and HCl at or below 0.1 percent as measured once emissions. Major source facilities would a year using methods similar to ASTM be required to make these records 1152C/1152M or company-developed methods; or available for inspection by the Maintain glass formulation records that permitting authority upon demand. maintain low HF and HCl emissions,’’ for 5 years, including but not limited to the following options: • • • • mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 show that no ingredient contains intentionally added chloride; or • Maintain records from a sampling program, or obtain annual certification from cullet providers verifying that the cullet does not contain excessive CRT glass; or • Monitor fluoride content of the finished glass to verify that the content is consistent with historic levels of similar glass formulations; or • In lieu of work practices, measure HF and HCl emissions during emission testing once every 5 years to confirm that the level of HF and HCl emissions is not a statistically significant higher level than the level measured for the furnace during the rulemaking process. The commenter also expressed support for the proposed requirement that these records would be maintained for inspection by a permitting authority. Response: We acknowledge that municipal water can contain chloride and fluoride; however, our prohibition on chlorides and fluorides pertains to the cullet composition. In the final rule, we are revising the proposed work practice standards for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category to address this comment. Specifically, we are replacing the proposed requirement that cullet be ‘‘free of chloride-, fluoride-, and fluorine-bearing constituents’’ with work practice standards that require wool fiberglass facilities to maintain records from either cullet suppliers or their internal inspections showing that cullet is free of the following components that would form HF or HCl in the furnace exhaust (i.e., chlorides, fluorides, and fluorine): Glass from industrial (also known as continuous strand, or textile) fiberglass, CRTs, computer monitors that include CRTs, and glass from microwave ovens, televisions or other electronics. Wool fiberglass facilities would ensure their feedstock does not contain chloride-, fluoride-, or fluorine-bearing cullet by one of two approaches: (1) Require the providers of external cullet to verify that VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the work practice standards? The EPA may adopt a work practice standard rather than a numeric standard when ‘‘the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.’’ CAA sections 112(h)(1) and (2)(B). As previously explained, in response to comments, we had reevaluated test data that we used to calculate the MACT floor for the proposed HCl and HF standards in our November 2011 proposal, and found that most of the test data reflected values below the detection limit of the test method. Specifically, over 80 percent of the test results were values indicating that both HCl and HF in the exhaust gas stream were below the detection limit of the methods. We believe such values are not a measurement of pollutants but rather an indication that such pollutants are not present in measurable concentrations. The EPA regards situations where, as here, the majority of measurements are below the detection limit as being a situation where measurement is not ‘‘technologically practicable’’ within the meaning of CAA section 112(h). The EPA also believes that unreliable measurements raise issues of practicability, feasibility and enforceability. The application of measurement methodology in this situation would also not be ‘‘practicable due to . . . economic limitation’’ within the meaning of CAA section 112(h) because it would result in cost expended to produce analytically suspect measurements. Therefore, for the reasons provided above, in the preambles for the 2013 and 2014 supplemental proposals, and in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we are finalizing the work practice PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 standards for HCl and HF emissions from furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major sources. As we explained in our November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68012 at 68023), in order to protect furnace components, wool fiberglass facilities identify, isolate and screen out fluoride- and chloride-bearing materials such as glass from industrial (also known as continuous strand, or textile) fiberglass, CRTs, computer monitors that include CRTs, glass from microwave ovens and glass from televisions. The furnace emissions testing shows this is an effective work practice to reduce emissions of these acid gases. HF and HCl emissions occur when recycled glass from these types of materials enters the external cullet stream from the recycling center. Owners/operators have two options for work practice standards. The first option is to require the providers of the external cullet to verify that the cullet does not include waste glass from the chloride-, fluoride, or fluorine-bearing sources mentioned above. The second option is to sample the raw materials to show the cullet entering the furnace does not contain glass from these types of sources. We are finalizing work practice standards for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category that require wool fiberglass facilities to maintain records from either cullet suppliers or their internal inspections showing that the external cullet is free of components that can form HF or HCl in the furnace exhaust (i.e., chlorides, fluorides and fluorine). Facilities are required to maintain quality assurance records for raw materials and/or records of glass formulations indicating the facility does not process fluoride-, fluorine-, or chloride-bearing materials in their furnaces, and that they thereby maintain low HF and HCl emissions. Major source facilities are required to make these records available for inspection by the permitting authority upon demand. Failure to maintain such records constitutes a violation from the requirement. E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources) 1. What SSM provisions did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major and area sources)? In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the DC Circuit Court vacated portions of E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 two provisions in the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. We proposed eliminating the SSM exemption in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing rules for major sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA proposed work practice standards in these rules (both 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN and the new 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN) for periods of startup and shutdown. We proposed the incorporation of work practice standards at startup and shutdown for major sources into the GACT standards for area sources. This would mean that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources would have to comply with an alternative compliance provision for startup and shutdown that would require sources to keep records showing that emissions were routed to the air pollution control devices and that these control devices were operated at the parameters established during the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the applicable emission limits. We also provided proposed regulatory text in the General Provisions applicability tables in each subpart in several respects consistent with vacatur of the SSM exemption. For example, we proposed eliminating the incorporation of the General Provisions’ requirement in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN that the source develop an SSM plan. We also proposed eliminating and revising certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are related to the SSM exemption. In our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we proposed that affected sources comply with practices that are used by the best performers in the source category (7968016). 2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major and area sources)? We have not changed any aspect of the proposed SSM provisions for 40 CFR part 63, subparts NN and NNN since the 2014 supplemental proposal. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major and area sources), and what are our responses? We received comments for and against the proposed revisions to remove the SSM exemptions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. The commenters who were against the proposed revisions did not provide new information or a basis for the EPA to change the proposed provisions and did not provide sufficient information to show that facilities cannot comply with the work practice standards during periods of startup and shutdown. The comments and our specific responses to those comments can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). 4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the SSM provisions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major and area sources)? For the reasons provided above, in the preamble for the proposed rules, and in the comment summary and response document available in the docket, we have removed the SSM exemption from the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP for major and area sources; eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption; and removed or modified inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are, therefore, finalizing our proposed determination that facilities comply with the work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces in 40 CFR part 63, subparts NN and NNN. F. Other Changes Made to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (Major and Area Sources) 1. What other changes did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area sources)? a. Electronic Reporting (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources) As stated in the preamble to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and operators of wool manufacturing facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test reports. See the discussion in section III.G of this preamble for more detail. PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45315 b. Test Methods and Testing Frequency (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources) For both major and area sources, we are finalizing, as proposed, the addition of EPA Method 29 for measuring the concentrations of chromium. For major sources only, we are finalizing requirements for methods to measure PM, phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol. We are finalizing the requirement, as proposed, to maintain the filter temperature at 248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit when using Method 5 to measure PM emissions from furnaces. We are also amending the NESHAP to allow owners or operators to measure PM emissions from furnaces using either EPA Method 5 or Method 29. We are finalizing, as proposed, the addition of EPA Method 318 for measuring the concentration of phenol and alternative test methods for measuring the concentration of methanol (EPA Methods 318 or 308). We are finalizing, as proposed, the replacement of a minimum sampling time of 1 hour with the specification to collect 10 spectra when using EPA Method 318. For Method 316, we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement to collect a minimum sampling volume of 2 dscm; however, we are not finalizing the proposed minimum sampling run time for EPA Method 316 of 2 hours. We are also finalizing editorial changes to the performance testing and compliance procedures to specify formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and chromium; and compliance procedures for HF and HCl. Additionally, we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for existing sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limit for gas-fired furnaces no later than July 31, 2017, and annually thereafter. We are also finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for existing sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol emissions limits for FA lines no later than July 31, 2017, and every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing the requirement for new sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limits no later than January 25, 2016 or 180 days after initial startup, whichever is later. Gas-fired glassmelting furnaces must demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limits annually after the first compliance test, and whenever the amount of cullet increases from that used in the most recent performance test E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45316 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations showing compliance with the standard, and all other processes must demonstrate compliance with the other emission limits every 5 years after the first successful compliance test. c. Applicability and Compliance Period (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources) For major sources, we are clarifying, as proposed, that 40 CFR part 63, NNN applies to FA lines regardless of the product being manufactured on the FA line and we are finalizing the compliance period of 2 years for existing sources subject to the chromium, formaldehyde, HCl, HF, phenol, PM, and methanol emission limits. For area sources, we are finalizing, as proposed, the compliance period of 2 years for existing sources subject to the chromium emission limits. d. Definitions (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources) In this action, we are finalizing, as proposed, definitions that apply to both major and area sources. These include a definition for ‘‘gas-fired glass-melting furnace’’, revisions to the definition of ‘‘new source’’, and the notification requirements to update the citation to the November 2011 proposal. We are finalizing, as proposed, a definition for ‘‘incinerator’’ in 40 CFR part 63, NNN (major sources). mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 e. Parameter Monitoring (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources) For both major and area sources, we are finalizing, as proposed, the monitoring requirements for furnaces to provide flexibility in establishing appropriate monitoring parameters. We are also requiring that facilities operating gas-fired furnaces maintain a 30-day rolling average of the percentage of cullet used in the raw materials fed to the furnace. To demonstrate compliance with this operating parameter, owners or operators must record a daily average value of the percentage of cullet used for each operating day and must include all of the daily averages recorded during the previous 30 operating days in calculating the rolling 30-day average. For major sources only, we are also finalizing, as proposed, the monitoring requirements for FA lines, to provide flexibility in establishing appropriate monitoring parameters. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 f. General Provisions Applicability Table (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources) For major sources, we are also making minor corrections to the citations in Table 1 (40 CFR part 63 General Provision applicability table) to reflect the final amendments in this action, and the revisions that have been made to the General Provisions since 1999. For area sources, we are identifying the applicability of part 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions to subpart NN. 2. How did the provisions regarding these other changes to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area sources) change since proposal? We have not made any changes to the proposed provisions for electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; applicability; compliance period; definitions; or the General Provision applicability table. However, we are revising the parameter monitoring standards of 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN to require daily monitoring and recording of the percentage of cullet used in the raw materials fed to gas-fired glass-melting furnaces and calculation of a rolling 30day average. The parameter monitoring requirements for area sources regulated by subpart NN reference the same requirements for major sources in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. 3. What key comments did we receive on the other changes to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area sources), and what are our responses? We received several comments received regarding electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; applicability; compliance period; parameter monitoring; definitions or revisions to the General Provisions applicability table. The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the technology review and our responses to these comments. Additional comments regarding these changes to the NESHAP and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). Comment: For both the major (NNN) and the area (NN) source rules, one commenter requested a one-time performance test, or alternatively a 5year testing requirement for furnaces, instead of the proposed annual performance tests, and asked that sources be allowed to test one ‘representative’ furnace instead of PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 having to test every furnace subject to the rule. The commenter contended that the EPA’s rationale that chromium emissions increase with age has no factual basis because age is not a causative factor for increased chromium emissions. The commenter also pointed out that annual testing is not consistent with other MACT (the Hazardous Waste MACT requires testing every 5 years), GACT, and NSPS standards, as well as state performance testing requirements. Response: In our April 2013 supplemental proposal (72 FR 22378), the EPA proposed reduced testing requirements for sources with emissions that are 75 percent or less of the proposed chromium limit. Subsequent to that proposal, the EPA determined that this reduced testing frequency would not provide sufficient information to determine compliance with the rule for either the plant operator or the EPA because chromium emissions increase with furnace age. Refer to the EPA’s memorandum ‘‘Chromium Emissions and Furnace Age’’ (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042–0332) for a summary of the data and information that EPA used to determine that furnace age causes and increase in chromium emissions for gas-fired furnaces. Regarding the comment that there are some federal and state regulations that require only initial testing, there are also federal and state regulations that require annual testing (e.g., Portland Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL). Each regulation establishes a testing frequency based on the particular characteristics of the industry that will allow the EPA to ensure compliance with the standards. We have determined that annual testing is appropriate here because the data and the technical literature show that a furnace’s chromium emissions can increase over a period of a few years. The wool fiberglass furnace refractory products degrade due to the corrosive and erosive nature of the wool fiberglass furnace environment. The wool fiberglass oxyfuel furnaces operate continuously over the furnace campaign of 10–12 years, and, according to industry statements, as the furnace ages, it loses an average of 20,000 pounds annually from the refractory. The pattern of refractory erosion is semispherical, and the exposed refractory surface area increases exponentially because it is constantly being eroded in a curved 3-dimensional surface pattern. This pattern of furnace refractory wear is responsible for the exponential increase in chromium emissions from wool fiberglass furnaces. For more information on the relationship between E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations wool fiberglass furnace age and increasing chromium emissions, see the paper ‘‘Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions From Wool Fiberglass Furnaces,’’ June 2015, in the docket to this rule). Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA’s listing all gas-fired furnaces for regulation under the area source rule for chromium emissions, and asserted that for both the major source rule and the area source rule, only certain gas-fired furnaces, oxyfuel furnaces, should be regulated for emissions of chromium compounds. The commenter suggested that the furnace type and design, not the chromium content of furnace refractories, impacts chrome emissions, and only oxyfuel furnaces have the specific design features associated with high chromium emissions. The commenter listed the following factors as responsible for oxyfuel furnaces emitting high hexavalent chromium: Higher flame temperature, high bulk wall temperature (oxyfuel temperatures peak at 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit; other gas furnaces peak at 3,560 degrees Fahrenheit), more chrome refractory brick above glass level, higher water vapor concentration, and an oxidizing atmosphere. The commenter argued that some of the air-gas furnaces that are not oxyfuel have lower surface temperature, and the surface temperature above the glass line is the single most influential variable influencing hexavalent chromium emissions, not the fuel type. In the commenter’s opinion, air-gas furnaces should not be regulated in the area source rule alongside oxyfuel furnaces. The commenter noted that one air-gas furnace was measured emitting high levels of chromium compounds, pointing out that it is different from other non-oxyfuel air-gas furnaces because it is not standard construction and it was at the end of its life. The commenter also added that furnace has now been shut down. The commenter also indicated that, despite their potential for increased chrome emissions, oxyfuel furnaces will continue to be used for a number of important reasons, including environmental benefits: (1) Oxyfuel furnaces reduce NOX and CO emissions because they emit less of these pollutants than does combustion with air, and some state and local regulations require reduced NOX emissions; (2) oxyfuel firing reduces NOX emissions because it does not introduce nitrogen from combustion air into the furnace; (3) oxyfuel furnaces use less energy than air-gas furnaces by obviating the need to heat nitrogen contained in ambient air VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 and, thus, produce less greenhouse gas emissions; and (4) oxyfuel firing also produces a reduced volume of flue gases which lowers the gas velocity in the furnace combustion zone and lowers the potential to entrain PM. Response: We note that this is a comment addressing the furnace technology of the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry, and as such applies to both major sources (under NNN) and area sources (under NN). This comment is addressed here as it first applies to major sources. We note that the same principles apply to area sources in this source category. We disagree with the commenter that air-gas furnaces do not warrant a chromium emission limit. Furnace emissions test data were collected from all wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities to determine the scope and extent of the area source rule limits. The data collected for gas-fired furnaces show that oxyfuel furnaces, as the commenter correctly points out, have the greatest potential to emit chromium compounds, followed by air-gas furnaces. This is because both types of gas-fired furnaces operate at elevated temperatures (exceeding 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit) at and above the level of the glass melt (well in excess of the temperature required to liberate and oxidize chromium compounds from the chromium refractory of the furnace vessel), are heated with natural gas and air (air-gas) or natural gas and oxygen (oxyfuel), and are constructed using chromium refractories that are capable of resisting the corrosive and erosive wear inherent in wool fiberglass furnace environment. In addition, as the commenter acknowledged, one air-gas furnace constructed using what the commenter described as a ‘‘non-standard design,’’ measured chromium emissions at levels higher than most of the oxyfuel furnaces that were tested. Additionally, according to industry comments and the information we collected under the 2012 ICR, all the oxyfuel furnaces in the source category are constructed using materials similar in type and chromium content to those used to construct the highest emitting oxyfuel furnace. There is nothing to prevent a similar furnace from being constructed at any site. However, as required, we set emissions limits based on the information available to us, and we find that both oxyfuel furnaces and air-gas furnaces have greater propensity than electric furnaces, by virtue of their construction, design, and operating temperatures, to form and emit chromium compounds. As explained in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal, these PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45317 conditions (high temperatures, available chromium and corrosive furnace gases) are factors that contribute to higher chromium emissions at wool fiberglass furnaces. As stated by the commenter and by other industry representatives, wool fiberglass companies intend to expand their use of chromium refractories in furnace designs. We disagree with the commenter’s view that we should address specific facilities only for this regulation. First, we note that NESHAP are national rules that apply to source categories rather than individual facilities, and while we do have the ability to subcategorize by process size, type, or class, we cannot simply target an individual facility or facilities. Second, nothing prevents an oxyfuel or air-gas furnace similar to the high emitting furnaces to be constructed at any existing or new wool fiberglass facility, and it is incumbent upon the EPA to prevent the danger to public health that would result from such a furnace being located at other sites. As the commenter pointed out, ‘‘Despite their potential for increased chrome emissions, oxyfuel furnaces will continue to be used for a number of important reasons . . ..’’, and as discussed in our 2011 proposal, we considered the resulting impact if the same furnace were to be constructed at any other existing wool fiberglass manufacturing site. As documented in our auxiliary risk characterization ‘‘Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories’’ and ‘‘Maximum Predicted HEM–3 Chronic Risks (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing) based on Revised— What If Analysis,’’ available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ– OAR–2010–1042–0086 and EPA–HQ– OAR–2010–1042–0263, respectively), we found that the CertainTeed facility in Athens, Georgia would have a risk of 400-in-1 million if it were to install a furnace similar to the high-chromium emitting furnace at Kansas City; and that the Athens, GA facility is now an area source that will be subject to the new area source standard (having recently phased out the use of phenol/ formaldehyde on the bonded lines). While most wool fiberglass furnaces at area sources currently emit chromium at levels well below the proposed level of the chromium emission limits, the limits serve as a backstop to prevent high emitters from emitting chromium compounds in an uncontrolled manner. Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the proposed changes to Method 5 that reduced the testing temperature of the probe by 100 degrees to improve the accuracy of the method, E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 45318 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations and whether this change will increase the potential for noncompliance with the PM standard. Specifically, the commenter stated that ‘‘what once may have passed through the apparatus now may become filterable’’ and, thus, be counted as PM because of the temperature difference. Further, the commenter pointed out that the data used to establish MACT for PM were collected at the higher temperature specified in 40 CFR 63.1385(a)(5) of subpart NNN. Response: In the final regulation, we are requiring that owners or operators conduct annual emissions tests for chromium, and to test for PM emissions every 5 years. To reduce the testing burden on facilities, the final rule specifies that owners or operators can measure PM emissions from furnaces using either EPA Method 5 or Method 29. Consequently, for the years when the facility must test for both chromium and filterable PM emissions, owners or operators can use Method 29 to obtain measurements for both chromium and filterable PM, rather than having to use Methods 5 and 29 separately. The 1999 NESHAP specified that owners or operators must use EPA Method 5 with the filter temperature maintained at 350 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit during for the test. However, Method 29 refers to the filter temperature specifications in Method 5 which requires that the filter be maintained at 248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit during testing. To maintain consistency with Method 29, we are amending the NESHAP to specify that owners or operators must maintain the filter temperature at 248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit when using Method 5 to measure filterable PM concentrations. We acknowledge that maintaining the Method 5 filter at 248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit during testing has the potential capture to more PM than would be captured at the higher filter temperature; however, we do not believe that the change in filter temperature that we are specifying in the final rule will result in wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities being in noncompliance with the final PM standards. As noted in the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22383), the data submitted to EPA, which includes filterable PM data collected using Method 29 and a filter temperature operating at 248 ± 25 degrees Fahrenheit, show that all gasfired glass-melting furnaces are currently meeting the PM standard, as proposed, of 0.33 pounds of PM per ton of glass pulled. Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA’s proposal to reduce VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 testing frequency to every 3 years. Due to the past history of unknown and unreported chromium emissions, innovation and changes within the wool fiberglass industry, the potential for unpredictable changes in chromium emissions, and the environmental justice impacts of the industry, the commenter requested the EPA to increase the frequency and quality of the monitoring and reporting requirements of the rules. Response: The EPA is finalizing annual testing, and removing the option proposed in 2013 to test every 3 years. The EPA agrees with the commenter that annual testing is required due to the fact that emission test data show that emissions can significantly increase with furnace age. Refer to section III.D.4 of this preamble and to the 2014 supplemental proposal for further discussion about the EPA’s rationale for requiring annual testing. 4. What is the rationale for our final decisions regarding these other changes to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area sources)? For the reasons provided above and in the preamble for the proposed rule, we are finalizing the proposed provisions regarding electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; applicability; compliance period; parameter monitoring; definitions; and the General Provision applicability table. VII. What is included in the final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for area sources? A. Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources We are finalizing, as described in this final action, the chromium emission limits for both new and existing gasfired glass-melting furnaces at area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (see Table 4 in section V.E of this preamble). 1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (d)(5) for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category? We initially proposed GACT standards for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category on April 15, 2013 (78 FR 22377). In that proposal, we proposed emission limits for chromium (0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled) and PM (0.33 pounds per ton of glass pulled) for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources. To maintain consistency with the major source rule, we proposed that facilities use the same requirements for PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 PM and chromium test methods and monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. We also proposed to include an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions. In the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68024), we proposed removal of the PM emission limit based on public comments the EPA received asserting that setting both PM and chromium limits was not necessary. We reviewed the technologies and emissions test data for controls that are in place at wool fiberglass furnaces. In some test reports, we had both inlet and outlet measurements of both PM and chromium. From these tests we saw that, in order for furnaces to meet the chromium limit, they would have to control PM, a fraction of which is chromium compounds. Because chromium is the specific pollutant of concern from the furnace process, and because under the Strategy we may either address pollutants of concern through an appropriate surrogate, or directly regulate the pollutant of concern, we are setting emission limits only for chromium from area sources. However, affected sources will still need to achieve PM reductions in order to meet the chromium limit. The PM controls in place at gas-fired glassmelting furnaces achieve an average efficiency of 98 percent. PM in the furnace exhaust includes chromium, and due to the high production rate of the continuous furnace process, this can be a significant amount of chromium emitted during the course of a year. Source testing conducted on two wool fiberglass furnaces at one facility 23 measured chromium at both the inlet and the outlet of the DESP. This test showed chromium entering the DESP averaged 1,500 pounds per year. Both PM and chromium were measured at the outlet of the DESP: Emissions of PM averaged 1.5 tons per year, and emissions of chromium averaged 11.4 pounds per year. This indicates to us that if sources attempted to remove their PM controls they would not be able to meet the chromium limit. In the 2014 supplemental proposal, we also withdrew our proposal to include an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions (79 FR 68015). 23 Testing was conducted at the Certainteed, Inc. facility in Mountaintop, PA in December 1991, October 1995, and during several tests conducted during the 1998–1999 time period for the state compliance reports. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 2. How did the GACT analysis change for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources? In response to comments on our proposed chromium compounds limits, and as discussed in section VI.A of this preamble, we are finalizing a chromium compounds emission limit for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces for major sources at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. Consistent with our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we are not finalizing a PM emissions limit for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources. Based on comments we received in response to the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we again reviewed the cost and control options and found using new cost information that the limit as proposed was not as cost effective as we initially believed. We determined that it was appropriate to modify the proposed limit of 0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled because the cost effectiveness for the emission reduction option was $660,000 per pound of chromium reduced for the raw material substitution option, and $620,000 per pound chromium reduced for the furnace rebuild option. We believe these costs are not reasonable compared to other cases where the EPA has regulated highly toxic pollutants, such as hexavalent chromium. We, therefore, reviewed the data to determine whether a higher limit than previously proposed would be more cost effective while still significantly reducing chromium emissions from wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We found that all gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at wool fiberglass area sources currently emit chromium compounds at rates below 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. These area sources together emit 18 pounds of chromium compounds annually. We compared the chromium emission reductions that would have resulted under the previously proposed emission limit of 0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled to the reductions that result from the final limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. The limit of 0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled would have resulted in a chromium emissions reduction of 8.5 pounds per year at area sources. The final limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled does not result in any chromium emissions reductions. This is due to the overall low emissions of chromium at area sources based on the most recent test data. The furnaces at area sources are mostly new furnaces of advanced VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 design. While immediate emission reductions would not be realized, this final limit sets a backstop so that another high-chromium-emitting, gasfired glass-melting furnace cannot be operated at an area source in this industry. This is important for this industry because certain furnaces have been shown to emit increasing amounts of chromium as their high-chromium refractory lining begins to degrade. We revised our GACT analysis as two approaches could be used by industry to reduce chromium emissions from gasfired furnaces. One approach is to rebuild the furnace at an annualized cost of $462,000 per year per furnace, and the other is to replace one raw material (cullet) with another material (raw minerals), which the industry stated would result in lower chromium emissions, at an average cost of about $1.3 million per year, depending on the production rate of each area source facility. Industry test data show that area sources will need to maintain their currently low levels of chromium emissions to meet the 0.00025 pounds per ton limit. Further, in evaluating available technology at area sources, we also considered the furnace technology for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in use at major sources. Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may set the GACT emission limit for area sources that provides for the use of generally available control technologies to reduce HAP, and we are not precluded from setting the limits for area sources equivalent to the limits for major sources. In this instance, as previously explained, there are no differences between gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in use at area and major sources. Moreover, major sources become area sources only by virtue of eliminating formaldehyde from their processes. Therefore, we believe that the control measure for reducing chromium emissions (i.e., furnace rebuild) used by major sources is generally available for area sources, and we are finalizing the same emission limit of 0.00025 pounds total chromium per ton of glass pulled for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources, under CAA section 112(d)(5). 3. What key comments did we receive on the GACT analysis for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources, and what are our responses? We received comments in support of and against our GACT analyses. The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the GACT analysis for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45319 category and our responses to these comments. Additional comments on the risk assessment and our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–1042). Comment: One commenter asserted that the EPA has not met procedural requirements necessary to regulate area sources under CAA section 112. The commenter contended that the EPA does not have the authority to list or regulate area sources under CAA section 112 unless the agency first finds that the source category presents a threat of adverse effects to human health or the environment. The commenter argued that the EPA’s own risk assessment indicates ‘‘risks due to hexavalent chromium and formaldehyde are acceptable.’’ In the commenter’s opinion ‘‘all the EPA has done is claim that: (1) Because area sources, like major sources, contribute chromium compounds, and (2) because many sources that once were major sources have since become area sources, it follows that area sources should also be regulated.’’ Further, the commenter stated that the EPA, in listing area sources, has not complied with section 307 of the CAA, which requires the EPA to provide to the public a summary of the basis for its decision to list the wool fiberglass industry as an area source (i.e., factual data underlying the decision, methodology used in obtaining data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposal). The commenter also argued that section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) mandates a ‘‘notice and comment’’ period for the EPA’s decision to list this industry as an area source due to an ‘‘adverse effects’’ finding, to give stakeholders an opportunity to comment on findings that form the basis of the proposed rulemaking. Response: In section II.D of the preamble to our 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22375, April 15, 2013), we presented the legal basis for our decision to add gas-fired glass-melting furnaces to the list of area source categories to be regulated. Sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the CAA require the EPA to identify and list the area source categories that represent not less than 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban air toxics associated with area sources and subject them to standards under the CAA section 112(d). Specifically, sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA require the EPA to list area sources representing 90 percent or more of emissions of the 30 urban HAP regardless of whether the EPA has E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45320 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 issued an adverse effects finding for each individual area source category that contributes to achieving the 90 percent emissions goal. As documented in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22375, April 15, 2013) and in the memorandum ‘‘Technical Memorandum—Emission Standards for Meeting the 90 Percent Requirement under Section 112(c)(3) and Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act’’ (February 18, 2011; EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–1042–0262), the EPA has achieved the 90 percent reduction of national chromium emissions required by the Strategy; however, as further stated in the 2013 supplemental proposal, nothing in the CAA prevents the agency from going beyond the statutory minimum of 90 percent, especially if generally available control technology for the source category is available at a reasonable cost. Indeed, to date, we have established emission standards for sources accounting for almost 100 percent of area source emissions of certain urban HAP (e.g., 99 percent of arsenic and beryllium compound emissions). Regarding the commenter’s opinion that the reason the EPA is regulating gas-fired glass-melting furnaces as area sources is that these sources were once regulated under the NESHAP and that they are similar to major sources, the EPA did discuss these facts in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22382, April 15, 2013). These facts serve to inform the EPA’s understanding of this area source category, but they are not the reason the EPA is regulating these area sources. The EPA is regulating gas-fired furnaces located at area sources to comply with the Strategy to address the annual emissions of chromium from these sources, as the EPA explained in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22375, April 15, 2013). In doing so, the EPA is addressing the high levels of chromium emissions, in particular hexavalent chromium emissions. As explained in the 2013 supplemental proposal preamble, gasfired glass-melting furnaces in this source category have the potential to emit high emissions of chromium and to experience emission increases in the future: ‘‘. . . we have determined that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities can emit higher levels of metal HAP, and also higher than expected levels of chromium than electric glass-melting furnaces. This is due to the use of high chromium refractories above the glass melt line, and use of these refractories is essential to obtain the desired glass-melting VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 furnace life. Also, the industry has indicated that the current trend is to replace air-gas glass-melting furnaces with oxyfuel glassmelting furnaces. Oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces have the highest potential for elevated chromium emissions as discussed further in section IV.A of this preamble. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate to add gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are located at area sources to the list of area sources regulated in the Urban Air Toxics Program.’’ (78 FR 22377, April 15, 2013) Based on the chromium emissions data for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in the source category available to the EPA, we have established that emissions for a furnace can vary according to its type, design, operation, and age. The EPA provided an example in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal of such variability for the CertainTeed’s Kansas City facility, the highest-emitting glass-melting furnace, for which chromium emissions (93 percent of which were in the hexavalent state) increased from 5 pounds per year to 540 pounds per year over a period of 7 years (78 FR 22381). These facts demonstrate the current and potential future high levels of chromium emitted from area sources. Further, the EPA has clearly indicated the high level of health risk associated with chromium emissions. In the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal, the EPA stated ‘‘Hexavalent chromium inhalation is associated with lung cancer, and EPA has classified it as a Class A known human carcinogen, per EPA’s classification system for the characterization of the overall weight of evidence for carcinogenicity’’ (78 FR 22374, April 15, 2013). Regarding the comment that the EPA has not complied with section 307 of the CAA because it has not provided to the public a summary of the basis for its decision to list gas-fired glass-melting furnaces as area sources (i.e., factual data underlying the decision, methodology used in obtaining data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposal), the EPA disagrees. We stated our intention in our 2013 supplemental proposal to exceed the 90 percent threshold for chromium emissions under the Strategy by listing gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources (78 FR 22376, April 15, 2013), and we made clear our intent to regulate chromium due to the toxicity of the substance (78 FR 22374, April 15, 2013). We did not conduct a health assessment and finding for chromium from this area source category because we are not obligated to do so under sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), or (k) of the CAA. For example, in our notice of revision to the PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 area source category list in 2002 (67 FR 70427, November 22, 2002), we listed 23 new source categories as area sources to meet or exceed the 90 percent threshold for all 30 HAP addressed by the Strategy, and the document included no risk-based rationale for listing each source category that exceeded the 90 percent target. Further, regarding the comment that the EPA has not complied with APA section 553 and section 307 of the CAA, we described our methodology for collecting these emissions data, as described in section II.E of the 2013 supplemental proposal preamble (78 FR 22376, April 15, 2013), and provided an opportunity for comment following that supplemental proposal. Regarding the legal basis for our listing area sources in section II.D, we presented this information in section II.E of the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22376, April 15, 2013) in compliance with section 307. Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed regulation of area sources because it is inappropriate and unjustified for the EPA to draw firm conclusions at this time about the need to regulate area sources, in particular regarding a threat of adverse effects to human health from area sources. The commenter contended that the EPA’s assessment of chromium emissions from the major source category in the 2011 proposal was fundamentally flawed and did not support the 2011 proposal, and that the EPA admitted in the 2011 proposal preamble that it must collect more information before drawing a conclusion regarding the wool fiberglass area source category and ‘‘a threat of adverse effects to human health or the environment.’’ The commenter argued that both of these facts reflect on the EPA’s readiness to regulate area sources. The commenter further observed that the EPA may regulate a category of area sources only after making a finding under CAA section 112(c)(3) that HAP emissions from such source category present ‘‘a threat of adverse effects to human health or the environment’’ that warrant regulation. Another commenter objected to the proposed regulation of area sources, given the limited value such a rule would provide. The commenter stated that the majority of wool fiberglass manufacturers are no longer major sources, observing that the most significant change since 1999 is the voluntary substitution of phenol/ formaldehyde binders with non-phenol/ formaldehyde binders, resulting in reduction in HAP emissions from this industry of the chief HAP regulated by the Wool Fiberglass MACT Standard. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations The commenter suggested that the health risk arising from the production of wool fiber glass insulation products has been significantly and sufficiently reduced and that any remaining residual risk does not justify subjecting the industry to additional regulatory requirements in the form of an area source standard. Response: As described in the preamble to the April 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22379), the EPA conducted a CAA section 114 survey to collect additional test data on chromium emissions from glass-melting furnaces, so that the EPA would have test data for all glass-melting furnaces. The area source standards proposed in 2013 and being finalized in this rulemaking are based on this complete set of emission data. Regarding the comments that there is insufficient health risk to warrant regulation of area sources and that the EPA is required to establish a ‘‘threat of adverse health effects’’ to regulate area sources, as noted in the comment above, the legal basis for our decision to add gas-fired glass-melting furnaces to the list of area source categories to be regulated is based on sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the CAA which require the EPA to identify and list the area source categories that represent not less than 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban air toxics associated with area sources and subject them to standards under the CAA section 112(d), and is not based on CAA section 112(c)(3). mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the GACT analysis for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources? Because of the considerations discussed above in this preamble, as well as in the preamble for the November 2014 supplemental proposal and in the comment summary and response document available in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042), we are finalizing revised GACT standards. B. What are the final requirements for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources? In this action, we are revising the proposed chromium emission limit for gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces from 0.00006 to 0.00025 pounds of total chromium per ton of glass pulled, based on our re-assessment of emissions data for newly-rebuilt furnaces (see section VI.A.2 of this preamble for a discussion of the basis of the revised emission limit for chromium compounds). We are also requiring that facilities at both major and area sources establish the materials mix, including the percentages of raw VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 minerals and cullet used in gas-fired glass-melting furnaces during the performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limit. The source must maintain the percentage of cullet in the raw material mixture at or below the level established during the most recent performance test showing compliance with the standard. If the gas-fired glass-melting furnace uses 100percent cullet during the performance test and is in compliance with the chromium emissions limit, then the source is not required to monitor cullet usage. Other requirements for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources, including startup and shutdown, compliance dates, test methods, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are the same requirements as those specified for major source facilities in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. Therefore, 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN cites 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, for these requirements. C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources? The GACT standards for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources being promulgated in this action are effective on July 29, 2015. The compliance date for existing sources is July 31, 2017. New sources must comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, July 29, 2015, or upon initial startup, whichever is later. The effective and compliance dates finalized in this action are consistent with the dates we presented in the 2014 supplemental proposal. D. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to the EPA for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources? The requirements for electronic reporting of performance test data for wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources are the same as the requirements for the mineral wool production source category. See section III.G of this preamble for a description of the requirements. VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? 1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category We estimate that there are eight mineral wool facilities that are major PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45321 sources and, therefore, would be subject to the final NESHAP provisions. 2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources) We estimate that there are 30 facilities in this source category (10 major sources and 20 area sources). Based on the responses to the CAA section 114 ICR, we believe that two of the 10 wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major sources would rebuild two furnaces before the end of their operational lifecycles. We believe that all furnaces at area sources can comply with the final chromium emission limit without rebuilding before the end of their operational lifecycles. B. What are the air quality impacts? 1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category Emissions of HAP from mineral wool production facilities have declined over the last decade as a result of federal and state rules and the industry’s own initiatives. The amendments we are finalizing in this action would maintain COS, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions at their current low levels. 2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources) We expect that these final RTR amendments would result in reductions of 524 pounds of chromium compounds, 490 pounds of which is in the hexavalent form. Available information indicates that all affected facilities will be able to comply with the final work practice standards for HF and HCl without additional controls, and that there will be no measurable reduction in emissions of these gases. Also, we anticipate that there will be continued reductions in PM emissions due to these final PM standards, which all sources currently are meeting due to the use of well-performing PM controls. Industry comments, statements, and sources in the technical literature indicate that as sources of industrial oxygen become available in areas proximate to wool fiberglass facilities, such sources will convert their existing furnaces to oxyfuel technology. As described in the ‘‘Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions From Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces,’’ June 2015, PM emissions are greatly reduced compared to electric furnaces and air-gas furnace technology. Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will result from the increased electricity usage E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45322 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations associated with the operation of control devices. We do not anticipate significant secondary impacts from the final amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT. C. What are the cost impacts? 1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category All lines currently in operation can meet the emission limits finalized in this action without installing new control equipment or using different input materials. The total annualized costs for these final amendments are estimated at $48,800 (2013 dollars) for additional testing and monitoring. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources) The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the ability of each facility to meet the final emissions limits for PM, chromium compounds, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. The memorandum, ‘‘Cost Impacts of the Final NESHAP RTR Amendments for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category,’’ includes a complete description of the cost estimate methods used for this analysis and is available in the docket. There are a total of eight gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at five major source facilities. Compliance testing is $10,000 per furnace, resulting in total testing costs for glass-melting furnaces of $80,000. At this time, there are two facilities with a total of two gasfired glass-melting furnaces that do not meet the final emissions limit for chromium compounds. We anticipate that these facilities would opt to reduce the operational lifecycle for both of the gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. Based on the public comments and information received in response to November 2014 supplemental proposal, we revised our cost estimate from reducing the operational furnace lifecycle (from 10 to 7 years), to a cost estimate for rebuilding gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. In this cost estimate, we included the cost of transferring production to another facility while the furnace is being rebuilt. For major sources, the estimated capital cost of rebuilding the furnace is $10.7 million per furnace with a total annualized cost of $462,000 per furnace. Two major source facilities operate 13 FA manufacturing lines, and, therefore, would incur testing costs (annualized cost of $10,400 in 2013 dollars). The total annualized costs for the final amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP for major VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 sources are estimated at $1.01 million (2013 dollars). Of the 20 area source facilities, five facilities operate a total of eight gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. Under these final amendments, none of the area source wool fiberglass facilities will incur any capital costs to comply with the final chromium compounds emissions limit. Five area source facilities would be subject to new costs for compliance testing on gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, which will total $80,000 annually (2013 dollars). D. What are the economic impacts? 1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category As noted in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68025), we performed an economic impact analysis for mineral wool consumers and producers nationally. The impacts to producers affected by this final rule are annualized costs of less than 0.01 percent of their revenues, using 2013 year revenue data to be consistent with the cost year for our analysis. Prices and output for mineral wool products should increase by no more than the impact of cost to revenues for producers; thus, mineral wool prices should increase by less than 0.01 percent. Hence, the overall economic impact of this final rule would be negligible to the affected industries and their consumers. For more information, please refer to the ‘‘Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis’’ for this final rulemaking that is in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). 2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources) We performed an economic impact analysis for wool fiberglass consumers and producers nationally, using the annual compliance costs estimated for both the RTR and area source final rules. The impacts to producers affected by this final rule are annualized costs of less than 0.01 percent of their revenues, using 2013 revenue data to be consistent with the cost year for our analysis. Prices and output for wool fiberglass products should increase by no more than the impact on cost to revenues for producers; thus, wool fiberglass prices should increase by less than 0.01 percent. Hence, the overall economic impact of this final rule would be negligible on the affected industries and their consumers. For more information, please refer to the ‘‘Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis’’ for this final rulemaking that is in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042). PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E. What are the benefits? 1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category The amendments we are finalizing in this action will maintain the reductions in COS, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions that the industry has achieved over time at their currently low levels. 2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources) We estimate that this action will achieve HAP emissions reduction of 524 pounds per year of chromium compounds from the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. The final standards will result in significant reductions in the actual and MACTallowable emissions of chromium compounds and will reduce the actual and potential cancer risks and noncancer health effects due to emissions of chromium compounds from this source category. In the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68026), we estimated that the proposed emission limits for FA and RS manufacturing lines would reduce organic HAP emissions by 123 tons per year. Based on the available data, we believe that all FA lines currently meet the final emission limits; therefore, all of the emission reductions of organic HAP presented in the 2014 supplemental proposal were attributed to RS lines. As discussed in section V.H of this preamble, we are not establishing emission limits for RS manufacturing lines in this final action. Consequently, the emissions limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol finalized in this action do not achieve reductions of organic HAP; however, the emission limits codify the reductions in organic HAP from FA lines that have been achieved by the industry since the 1999 NESHAP was promulgated. We have issued a CAA section 114 ICR to obtain process and emissions data for RS manufacturing lines and we will evaluate RTR limits for these sources, based on the CAA section 114 ICR data, at a future date. F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? The EPA is making environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low income populations in the United States. The EPA has established policies regarding the integration of E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations environmental justice into the agency’s rulemaking efforts, including recommendations for the consideration and conduct of analyses to evaluate potential environmental justice concerns during the development of a rule. Following these recommendations, to gain a better understanding of the source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis for mineral wool production and wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities prior to proposal to identify any overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations. This analysis gives an indication of the prevalence of sub-populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources. The EPA also conducted a risk-based socio-economic analysis for populations living near wool fiberglass facilities titled ‘‘Risk and Technology Review— Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Wool Fiberglass Facilities,’’ which is available in the docket. The analysis indicated that 1,207,000 individuals living within 50 km of the wool fiberglass facilities have a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or greater due to emissions from wool fiberglass facilities. The specific demographic results indicate that the percentage of minority population potentially impacted by emissions from wool fiberglass facilities (i.e., within 50 km) is greater than the national minority percentage (44 percent for the source category compared to 28-percent nationwide). Furthermore, other demographic groups with source category percentages greater than the corresponding national percentage include: The population over 25 without a high school diploma (18 percent compared to 15 percent); the population from 18 to 64 years of age (66 percent compared to 63 percent), and the population below the poverty level (15 percent compared to 14 percent). The other demographic categories potentially impacted by emissions from wool fiberglass facilities (i.e., African American, Native American, ages less than 18, and ages 65 and up) are less than or equal to the corresponding national percentage. The EPA’s integration of environmental justice into the agency’s rulemaking efforts was also thoroughly demonstrated by EPA’s Region 7 response to emissions data obtained through this rulemaking. Region 7 proactively engaged the local community and identified potential environmental concerns; conducted air monitoring and modeling; and opened VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 lines of communication and launched several opportunities for the community to voice concerns, ask questions, and receive additional information. Additionally, EPA Headquarters and Region 7 worked together to provide resources for communities, as well as to ensure that feedback received from the Region 7 communities was being considered in this rulemaking. Through our analyses, the EPA has determined that these final rules for 40 CFR part 63, subparts NN, DDD, and NNN will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations. Additionally, the final changes to the NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations by reducing emissions of chromium compounds by over 524 pounds per year and will not cause any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low income, or indigenous populations. Our demographic analysis shows that disproportionately impacted minority areas will benefit from the lower emissions. Further details concerning this analysis are presented in the memorandum titled, ‘‘Updated Environmental Justice Review: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing RTR,’’ a copy of which is available in the dockets for this action. G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? As part of the health and risk assessments, risk-based demographic analysis conducted for this action, risks to infants and children were assessed. This analysis is documented in the following memoranda which are available in the dockets for this action: • ‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the June 2015 Final Rule’’ • ‘‘Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Wool Fiberglass Facilities’’ The results of the risk-based socioeconomic analysis for populations living near wool fiberglass facilities indicates that there are 1,207,000 individuals living within 50 km of the wool fiberglass facilities have a cancer risk of 1-in-1-million or greater (based on actual emissions). The distribution of the population with risks above 1-in-1 million is 24 percent for ages 0 to 17, 66 percent for ages 18 to 64, and 10 percent for ages 65 and up. Children ages 0 to 17 also constitute 24 percent PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45323 of the population nationwide. Therefore, the analysis shows that actual emissions from wool fiberglass facilities do not have a disproportionate impacts on children ages 0 to 17. The results of the demographic analysis show that the average percentage of children 17 years and younger in close proximity to mineral wool production and wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities is similar to the percentage of the national population in this age group. The difference in the absolute number of percentage points of the population 17 years and younger from the national average indicates a 7-percent over-representation near mineral wool production and wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. Consistent with the EPA’s ‘‘Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children’’, we conducted inhalation and multipathway risk assessments for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories considering risk to infants and children.24 Children are exposed to chemicals emitted to the atmosphere via two primary routes: Either directly via inhalation, or indirectly via ingestion or dermal contact with various media that have been contaminated with the emitted chemicals. The EPA considers the possibility that children might be more sensitive than adults might be to toxic chemicals, including chemical carcinogens. For our multipathway screening assessment (i.e., ingestion), we assessed risks for adults and various age groups of children to determine what age group was most at risk for purposes of developing the screening/emission threshold for each persistent and bioaccumulative—HAP (PB–HAP). Childrens’ exposures are expected to differ from exposures of adults due to differences in body weights, ingestion rates, dietary preferences, and other factors. It is important, therefore, to evaluate the contribution of exposures during childhood to total lifetime risk using appropriate exposure factor values, applying age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAF) as appropriate. The EPA developed a health protective exposure scenario whereby the receptor, at various lifestages, receives ingestion exposure via both the farm food chain and the fish ingestion pathways. Based on the analyses described above, the EPA has determined that the 24 Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 2014. Available at https:// www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/ documents/1995_childrens_health_policy_ statement.pdf. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations changes to these rules, which will reduce emissions of chromium compounds by over 524 pounds per year, will lead to reduced risk to children and infants. The final amendments will also codify the reductions in emissions (COS, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol from mineral wool facilities, and formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from wool fiberglass facilities) that the industries have achieved since the NESHAP for the respective source categories were promulgated in 1999. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/ lawsregulations/laws-and-executiveorder. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in these rules have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the Mineral Wool Production source category has been assigned EPA ICR number 1799.06. The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category has been assigned EPA ICR number 1160.10. You can find a copy of these ICRs in the dockets for these rules, and they are briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The information requirements in these rulemakings are based on the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These notifications, reports and records are essential in determining compliance, and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). Mineral Wool Production source category: Respondents/affected entities: Existing, new, or reconstructed mineral wool production facilities that are major sources. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 Estimated number of respondents: 8. Frequency of response: Annual. Total estimated burden: 123 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: $25,150 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources): Respondents/affected entities: Existing, new, or reconstructed wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major sources. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414). Estimated number of respondents: 10. Frequency of response: Annual. Total estimated burden: 156 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: $46,142 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (area sources): Respondents/affected entities: Existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that are located at a plant site that is an area source. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414). Estimated number of respondents: 5. Frequency of response: Annual. Total estimated burden: 78 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: $32,334 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. Five of the eight mineral wool production parent companies affected in the final rule are considered to be small entities per the definition provided in this section. There are no small businesses in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. We estimate that these final rules will not PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 have a significant economic impact on any of those companies. While there are some costs imposed on affected small businesses as a result of these rulemakings, the costs associated with this action are less than the costs associated with the limits proposed on November 25, 2011. Specifically, the cost to small entities in the Mineral Wool Production source category due to the changes in COS, HF, and HCl are lower as compared to the limits proposed on November 25, 2011, and April 15, 2013. None of the five small mineral wool parent companies is expected to have an annualized compliance cost of greater than 1 percent of its revenues. All other affected parent companies are not small businesses according to the SBA small business size standard for the affected NAICS code (NAICS 327993). Therefore, we have determined that the impacts for this final rule do not constitute a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although these final rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried to mitigate the impact that these rules would have on small entities. The actions we took to mitigate impacts on small businesses include less frequent compliance testing for the entire mineral wool industry and subcategorizing the Mineral Wool Production source category in developing the proposed COS, HF and HCl emissions limits. For more information, please refer to the economic impact and small business analysis that is in the docket. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. These final rules impose requirements on owners and operators of specified area and major sources, and not tribal governments. There are no wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities or mineral wool production facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action’s health and risk assessments are contained in sections IV.A, VI.A, VIII.F, VIII.G of this preamble and in the ‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories’’ memorandum available in the dockets for this rulemaking. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their databases. As discussed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68029), under 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDD, we conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, we conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 318, 320, 29, and 0061 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN, we conducted searches for EPA Methods 5 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 and 29. These searches did not identify any VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. The EPA solicited comments on VCS and invited the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS; however, we did not receive comments regarding this aspect of 40 CFR part 63, subparts NN, DDD, or NNN. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As explained in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68029), the EPA determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. Further details concerning this analysis are presented in the memorandum titled, ‘‘Updated Environmental Justice Review: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing RTR’’, a copy of which is available in the dockets for this action. Additionally, the EPA engaged meaningfully with communities throughout this rulemaking process, to help them engage in the rulemaking process and to get their feedback on the proposed rulemaking. Also, EPA worked closely with Region 7, to ensure that communities that raised concerns by the sectors covered in this rulemaking, were being adequately engaged throughout this process. K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45325 Intergovernmental relations, Mineral wool production, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass manufacturing. Dated: June 25, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 2. Subpart NN is added to part 63 to read as follows: ■ Subpart NN—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources Sec. 63.880 Applicability. 63.881 Definitions. 63.882 Emission standards. 63.883 Monitoring requirements. 63.884 Performance test requirements. 63.885 Test methods and procedures. 63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. 63.887 Compliance dates. 63.888 Startups and shutdowns. 63.889–63.899 [Reserved] Table 1 to Subpart NN of Part 63— Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN Subpart NN—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources § 63.880 Applicability. (a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an area source or is located at a facility that is an area source. (b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of chromium compounds, as measured according to the methods and procedures in this subpart, emitted from each new and existing gas-fired glass-melting furnace located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an area source. (c) The provisions of subpart A of this part that apply and those that do not apply to this subpart are specified in Table 1 to this subpart. (d) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces that are not subject to subpart NNN of this part are subject to this subpart. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Wool fiberglass manufacturing facility means any facility manufacturing wool fiberglass. § 63.881 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 (e) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces using electricity as a supplemental energy source are subject to this subpart. § 63.882 Definitions. Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, or in this section as follows: Bag leak detection system means systems that include, but are not limited to, devices using triboelectric, light scattering, and other effects to monitor relative or absolute particulate matter emissions. Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations, superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat exchangers, exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipment, integral control systems and instrumentation, and appendages for conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming processes. The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not considered part of the gas-fired glassmelting furnace. Cold-top electric glassmelting furnaces as defined in subpart NNN of this part are not gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. Glass pull rate means the mass of molten glass that is produced by a single glass-melting furnace or that is used in the manufacture of wool fiberglass at a single manufacturing line in a specified time period. Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to noncombustible gases. For the purposes of this subpart, the term ‘‘incinerator’’ means ‘‘regenerative thermal oxidizer’’. Manufacturing line means the manufacturing equipment for the production of wool fiberglass that consists of a forming section where molten glass is fiberized and a fiberglass mat is formed and which may include a curing section where binder resin in the mat is thermally set and a cooling section where the mat is cooled. New source means any affected source the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after April 15, 2013. Wool fiberglass means insulation materials composed of glass fibers made from glass produced or melted at the same facility where the manufacturing line is located. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 Emission standards. (a) Emission limits for gas-fired glassmelting furnaces. For each existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired glassmelting furnace, on and after the compliance date specified in § 63.887 whichever date is earlier, you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere emissions in excess of 0.00025 lb of chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled (0.25 lb per thousand tons glass pulled). (b) Operating limits. On and after the date on which the performance test required by §§ 63.7 and 63.1384 is completed, you must operate all affected control equipment and processes according to the following requirements. (1)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour of an alarm from a bag leak detection system and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. (ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the bag leak detection system alarm is sounded for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. (2)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any 3-hour block average of the monitored electrostatic precipitator (ESP) parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. (ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the monitored ESP parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. (iii) You must operate the ESP such that the monitored ESP parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. (3)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any 3-hour block average value for the monitored parameter(s) for a gas-fired glass-melting PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 furnace, which uses no add-on controls, is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. (ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the monitored parameter(s) is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. (iii) You must operate a gas-fired glass-melting furnace, which uses no add-on technology, such that the monitored parameter(s) is not outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. (4)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when the average glass pull rate of any 4-hour block period for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces equipped with continuous glass pull rate monitors, or daily glass pull rate for glass-melting furnaces not so equipped, exceeds the average glass pull rate established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884, by greater than 20 percent and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. (ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when the glass pull rate exceeds, by more than 20 percent, the average glass pull rate established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. (iii) You must operate each gas-fired glass-melting furnace such that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20 percent, the average glass pull rate established during the most recent successful performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. (5)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when the average pH (for a caustic scrubber) or pressure drop (for a venturi scrubber) for any 3-hour block period is outside the limits established during the performance tests as specified in § 63.884 for each wet scrubbing control E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations device and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. (ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64, subpart D when any scrubber parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. (iii) You must operate each scrubber such that each monitored parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in § 63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period. § 63.883 Monitoring requirements. You must meet all applicable monitoring requirements contained in subpart NNN of this part. § 63.884 Performance test requirements. (a) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart you must conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits in § 63.882. For existing sources, compliance is demonstrated when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each of the applicable emission limits in § 63.882 by July 31, 2017. For new sources compliance is demonstrated when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each of the applicable emission limits in § 63.882 by January 25, 2016 or 180 days after initial startup, whichever is later. You must conduct the performance test according to the procedures in subpart A of this part and in this section. (b) You must meet all applicable performance test requirements contained in subpart NNN of this part. § 63.885 Test methods and procedures. (a) You must use the following methods to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits: (1) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 for the selection of the sampling port location and number of sampling ports; (2) Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–1 for volumetric flow rate; (3) Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2) for oxygen and carbon dioxide for diluent measurements needed to correct the concentration measurements to a standard basis; (4) Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–4 for moisture content of the stack gas; (5) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8) for the concentration of chromium compounds. Each run must consist of a minimum sample volume of two dry standard cubic meters. (6) An alternative method, subject to approval by the Administrator. (b) Each performance test must consist of three runs. You must use the average of the three runs in the applicable equation for determining compliance. § 63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. You must meet all applicable notification, recordkeeping and 45327 reporting requirements contained in subpart NNN of this part. § 63.887 Compliance dates. (a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must be in compliance with the requirements of this subpart by no later than: (1) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the compliance date for an owner or operator of an existing source subject to the provisions in this subpart would be July 31, 2017. (2) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the compliance date for new and reconstructed sources is upon initial startup of a new gas-fired glassmelting furnace or on July 29, 2015, whichever is later. (3) The compliance date for the provisions related to the electronic reporting provisions of § 63.886 is on July 29, 2015. (b) Compliance extension. The owner or operator of an existing source subject to this subpart may request from the Administrator an extension of the compliance date for the emission standards for one additional year if such additional period is necessary for the installation of controls. You must submit a request for an extension according to the procedures in § 63.6(i)(3). § 63.888 Startups and shutdowns. You must meet all applicable startup and shutdown provisions contained in subpart NNN of this part. §§ 63.889–63.899 [Reserved] TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART NN mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart NN § 63.1(a)(1)–(5) ............ § 63.1(a)(6) .................. § 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ............ § 63.1(a)(10)–(12) ........ § 63.1(b)(1) .................. § 63.1(b)(2) .................. § 63.1(b)(3) .................. § 63.1(c)(1)–(2) ............ § 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ............ § 63.1(c)(5)–(e) ............ § 63.2 ........................... § 63.3 ........................... § 63.4(a)(1)–(2) ............ § 63.4(a)(3)–(5) ............ § 63.4(b)–(c) ................ § 63.5(a)–(b)(2) ............ § 63.5(b)(3)–(4) ............ § 63.5(b)(5) .................. § 63.5(b)(6) .................. § 63.5(c) ....................... § 63.5(d) ....................... Applicability ..................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Initial Applicability Determination .................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Definitions ....................................................... Units and Abbreviations .................................. Prohibited Activities ......................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ....... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Yes Yes No ............................... Yes Yes No ............................... Yes Yes No ............................... Yes Yes ............................. Yes Yes No ............................... Yes Yes Yes No ............................... Yes No ............................... Yes VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Explanation [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. Additional definitions in § 63.881. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45328 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART NN—Continued General provisions citation Requirement § 63.5(e) ....................... § 63.5(f) ........................ Approval of Construction/Reconstruction ....... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on State Review. Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements. General Duty to Minimize Emissions .............. Requirement to Correct Malfunctions As Soon As Possible. ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Plan. SSM Exemption .............................................. Methods for Determining Compliance ............ Use of an Alternative Nonopacity Emission ... SSM Exemption .............................................. ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Performance Testing ....................................... ......................................................................... Alternative Test Method .................................. Data Analysis .................................................. ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Waiver of Performance Test ........................... Monitoring Requirements ................................ General Duty to Minimize Emissions and CMS Operation. ......................................................................... Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS ......................................................................... Written Procedures for CMS ........................... § 63.6(a)–(d) ................ § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............... § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .............. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............. § 63.6(e)(2) .................. § 63.6(e)(3) .................. § 63.6(f)(1) ................... § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............. § 63.6(g) ....................... § 63.6(h)(1) .................. § 63.6(h)(2)–(j) ............. § 63.7(a)–(d) ................ § 63.7(e)(1) .................. § 63.7(e)(2)–(4) ............ § 63.7(f) ........................ § 63.7(g)(1) .................. § 63.7(g)(2) .................. § 63.7(g)(3) .................. § 63.7(h) ....................... § 63.8(a)–(b) ................ § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ............... § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .............. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............. § 63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) ........ § 63.8(d)(3) .................. § 63.8(e)–(g) ................ § 63.9(a) ....................... § 63.9(b)(1)–(2) ............ § 63.9(b)(3) .................. § 63.9(b)(4)–(5) ............ § 63.9(c)–(j) .................. § 63.10(a) ..................... § 63.10(b)(1) ................ § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............. § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............ § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ........... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ..... ......................................................................... Notification Requirements ............................... Initial Notifications ........................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Recordkeeping and Reporting-Requirements General Recordkeeping Requirements .......... Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. Recordkeeping of Malfunctions ...................... § 63.10(c)(9) ................ § 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ...... Maintenance Records ..................................... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSM. Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions ............ Other CMS Requirements .............................. Recordkeeping Requirement for Applicability Determinations. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for CMS—Identifying Exceedances and Excess Emissions. ......................................................................... ......................................................................... § 63.10(c)(12)–(14) ...... § 63.10(c)(15) .............. § 63.10(d)(1)–(4) .......... § 63.10(d)(5) ................ ......................................................................... Use of SSM Plan ............................................ General Reporting Requirements ................... SSM Reports ................................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ........... § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) .. § 63.10(b)(3) ................ § 63.10(c)(1)–(6) .......... § 63.10(c)(7)–(8) .......... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Applies to subpart NN VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Explanation Yes Yes Yes No ............................... No Yes No ............................... No ............................... No Yes Yes No Yes Yes ............................. No ............................... Yes Yes Yes No ............................... Yes Yes Yes No ............................... Yes No Yes Yes, except for last sentence, which refers to SSM plan. SSM plans are not required Yes Yes Yes No ............................... Yes Yes Yes Yes No No ............................... See § 63.882 for general duty requirements. [Reserved]. Startups and § 63.888. shutdowns addressed in § 63.884 has specific requirements. See § 63.882. [Reserved]. See § 63.882(b) for general duty requirement. [Reserved]. See § 63.886 for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction. Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No ............................... No ............................... Yes No Yes No ............................... Sfmt 4700 [Reserved]. See § 63.886 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. See § 63.886(c)(2) for reporting of malfunctions. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45329 TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART NN—Continued General provisions citation Requirement § 63.10(e)–(f) ............... Additional CMS Reports Excess Emission/ CMS Performance Reports COMS Data Reports Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver. Control Device Requirements Applicability Flares. Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring Equipment for Leaks. Alternative Work Practice Standard ................ Alternative Work Practice Requirements ........ State Authority and Delegations ..................... Addresses ....................................................... Incorporation by Reference ............................ Information Availability/Confidentiality ............ Performance Track Provisions ........................ § 63.11(c) ..................... § 63.11(d) ..................... § 63.11(e) ..................... § 63.12 ......................... § 63.13 ......................... § 63.14 ......................... § 63.15 ......................... § 63.16 ......................... Subpart DDD—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production 3. Section 63.1178 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) to read as follows: ■ Where: Percent excess oxygen = Percentage of excess oxygen present above the stoichiometric balance of 1.00, (%). 1.00 = Ratio of oxygen in a cupola combustion chamber divided by the stoichiometric quantity of oxygen required to obtain complete combustion of fuel. Oxygen available = Quantity of oxygen introduced into the cupola combustion zone. Fuel demand for oxygen = Required quantity of oxygen for stoichiometric combustion of the quantity of fuel present. 4. Section 63.1179 is amended by revising the section heading, paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows: ■ mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 § 63.1179 For curing ovens or combined collection/curing operations, what standards must I meet? (a) You must control emissions from each curing oven or combined collection/curing operations as specified in Table 2 to this subpart. (b) You must meet the following operating limits for each curing oven or combined collection/curing operation: * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 Explanation Yes No ............................... Flares will not be used to comply with the emissions limits. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes § 63.1178 For cupolas, what standards must I meet? (a) You must control emissions from each cupola as specified in Table 2 to this subpart. (b) * * * (3) Additionally, on or after the applicable compliance date for each new or reconstructed cupola, you must either: (i) Maintain the operating temperature of the incinerator so that the average operating temperature for each threehour block period never falls below the average temperature established during the performance test, or (ii) Maintain the percent excess oxygen in the cupola at or above the level established during the performance test. You must determine the percent excess oxygen using the following equation: ■ 5. Section 63.1180 is revised to read as follows: introductory text, and paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: § 63.1180 When must I meet these standards? § 63.1182 How do I comply with the carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen chloride standards for existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas? (a) Cupolas and curing ovens or combined collection/curing operations. You must comply with the emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart no later than the dates specified in Table 2 to this subpart. (b) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. 6. Section 63.1182 is amended by revising the section heading, the ■ PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 To comply with the carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen chloride standards, you must meet the following: (a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that continuously measures the operating temperature in the firebox of each thermal incinerator. (b) Conduct a performance test as specified in § 63.1188 that shows compliance with the carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen chloride emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, while the device for measuring incinerator operating temperature is installed, operational, and properly calibrated. Establish the average operating temperature based on the performance test as specified in § 63.1185(a). * * * * * E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 ER29JY15.000</GPH> § 63.11(a)–(b) .............. Applies to subpart NN 45330 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7. Section 63.1183 is amended by revising the section heading, the introductory text, and paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows: ■ § 63.1183 How do I comply with the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol standards for existing, new, and reconstructed combined collection/curing operations? To comply with the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol standards, you must meet all of the following: * * * * * (b) Conduct a performance test as specified in § 63.1188 while manufacturing the product that requires a binder formulation made with the resin containing the highest freeformaldehyde content specification range. Show compliance with the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions limits, specified in Table 2 to this subpart, while the device for measuring the control device operating parameter is installed, operational, and properly calibrated. Establish the average operating parameter based on the performance test as specified in § 63.1185(a). * * * * * (d) Following the performance test, monitor and record the freeformaldehyde content of each resin lot and the formulation of each batch of binder used, including the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol content. * * * * * ■ 8. Section 63.1188 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows: § 63.1188 What performance test requirements must I meet? mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 * * * * * (b) Conduct a performance test, consisting of three test runs, for each cupola and curing oven or combined collection/curing operation subject to this subpart at the maximum production rate to demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart. (c) Following the initial performance or compliance test to be conducted within 180 days of the effective date of this rule, you must conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, at least once every 5 years. (d) To demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, measure emissions of PM, carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen chloride from each existing, new, or reconstructed cupola. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 (e) To demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, measure emissions of formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol from each existing, new, or reconstructed curing oven or combined collection/curing operation. (f) To demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, measure emissions at the outlet of the control device for PM, carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. * * * * * ■ 9. Section 63.1189 is amended by revising paragraph (g) and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: § 63.1189 What test methods do I use? * * * * * (g) Method 318 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to this part for the concentration of formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, and carbonyl sulfide. * * * * * (i) Method 26A or 320 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to this part for the concentration of hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride. ■ 10. Section 63.1190 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and the definition of ‘‘MW,’’ and by removing paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.1190 How do I determine compliance? * * * * * (b) Using the results from the performance tests, you must use the following equation to determine compliance with the carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol numerical emissions limits as specified in Table 2 to this subpart: * * * * * MW = Molecular weight of measured pollutant, g/g-mole: Carbon monoxide = 28.01, carbonyl sulfide = 60.07, hydrogen fluoride = 20.01, hydrogen chloride = 36.46, Formaldehyde = 30.03, Phenol = 94.11, Methanol = 32.04. * * * * * 11. Section 63.1191 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows: ■ § 63.1191 submit? What notifications must I You must submit written or electronic notifications to the Administrator as required by § 63.9(b) through (h). Electronic notifications are encouraged when possible. These notifications PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 include, but are not limited to, the following: * * * * * ■ 12. Section 63.1192 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: § 63.1192 What recordkeeping requirements must I meet? * * * * * (d) Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10 of the General Provisions that are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart. Electronic recordkeeping is encouraged. * * * * * ■ 13. Section 63.1193 is amended by revising paragraph (a), removing and reserving paragraph (b), and adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows: § 63.1193 What reports must I submit? * * * * * (a) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in § 63.2) required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated fuel analyses, following the procedure specified in either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site (https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ index.html), you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit performance test data in an electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, once the XML schema is available. If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. (b) [Reserved] * * * * * (g) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (a) of this section in paper format. ■ 14. Section 63.1196 is amended by: ■ a. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ‘‘Closed-top cupola’’, ‘‘Combined collection/curing operations’’, ‘‘Open-top cupola’’, and ‘‘Slag’’; and ■ b. Revising the definition of ‘‘Incinerator’’ and ‘‘New Source’’. The additions and revision read as follows: § 63.1196 What definitions should I be aware of? * * * * * Closed-top cupola means a cupola that operates as a closed (process) system and has a restricted air flow rate. * * * * * Combined collection/curing operations means the combination of fiber collection operations and curing ovens used to make bonded products. * * * * * Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to noncombustible gases. For the purposes of this subpart, the term ‘‘incinerator’’ means ‘‘regenerative thermal oxidizer’’. * * * * * New Source means any affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after May 8, 1997 for purposes of determining the applicability of the emissions limits in Rows 1–4 of Table 2. For all other emission limits new source means any affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after November 25, 2011. * * * * * Open-top cupola means a cupola that is open to the outside air and operates with an air flow rate that is unrestricted and at low pressure. * * * * * Slag means the by-product materials separated from metals during smelting and refining of raw ore. * * * * * ■ 15. Section 63.1197 is added to read as follows: § 63.1197 45331 Startups and shutdowns. (a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times. (b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are utilized for compliance with this subpart during times when emissions are being, or are otherwise required to be, routed to such items of equipment. (c) Startup begins when fuels are ignited in the cupola. Startup ends when the cupola produces molten material. (d) Shutdown begins when the cupola has reached the end of the melting campaign and is empty. No molten material continues to flow from the cupola during shutdown. (e) During periods of startups and shutdowns you must operate your cupola according to one of the following methods: (1) You must keep records showing that your emissions were controlled using air pollution control devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard; or (2) You must keep records showing the following: (i) You used only clean fuels during startup and shutdown; and (ii) You operate the cupola during startup and shutdown with three percent oxygen over the fuel demand for oxygen. ■ 16. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 is revised to read as follows: TABLE 1 TO SUBPART DDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART DDD mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? § 63.1(a)(1)–(6) ............ § 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ............ § 63.1(a)(10)–(12) ........ § 63.1(b)(1) .................. § 63.1(b)(2) .................. § 63.1(b)(3) .................. § 63.1(c)(1)–(2) ............ § 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ............ § 63.1(c)(5)–(e) ............ § 63.2 ........................... § 63.3 ........................... § 63.4(a)(1)–(2) ............ § 63.4(a)(3)–(5) ............ § 63.4(b)–(c) ................ § 63.5(a)(1)–(b)(2) ....... § 63.5(b)(3)–(4) ............ § 63.5(b)(5) .................. § 63.5(b)(6) .................. § 63.5(c) ....................... § 63.5(d)–(f) ................. § 63.6(a)–(d) ................ § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............... General Applicability ....................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Initial Applicability Determination .................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Applicability After Standard Established ......... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Definitions ....................................................... Units and Abbreviations .................................. Prohibited Activities ......................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ....... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... General Duty to Minimize Emissions .............. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. No ............................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Explanation [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. See § 63.1180(d) for general duty requirement. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45332 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1 TO SUBPART DDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART DDD—Continued General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .............. Requirement to Correct Malfunctions As Soon As Possible. ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM) Plan .. No ............................... § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............. § 63.6(e)(2) .................. § 63.6(e)(3) .................. § 63.6(f)(1) ................... § 63.6(f)(2)–(g) ............. § 63.6(h)(1) .................. § 63.6(h)(2)–(j) ............. § 63.7(a)–(d) ................ § 63.7(e)(1) .................. § 63.7(e)(2)–(f) ............. § 63.7(g)(1) .................. § 63.7(g)(2) .................. § 63.7(g)(3)–(h) ............ § 63.8(a)–(b) ................ § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ............... § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .............. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............. § 63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) ........ § 63.8(d)(3) .................. § 63.8(e)–(g) ................ § 63.9(a) ....................... § 63.9(b)(1)–(2) ............ § 63.9(b)(3) .................. § 63.9(b)(4)–(b)(5) ....... § 63.9(c)–(j) .................. § 63.10(a) ..................... § 63.10(b)(1) ................ § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............. § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............ § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ........... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ..... § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ........... § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) .. § 63.10(b)(3) ................ § 63.10(c)(1)–(6) .......... § 63.10(c)(7)–(8) .......... § 63.10(c)(9) ................ § 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ...... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 § 63.10(c)(12)–(14) ...... § 63.10(c)(15) .............. § 63.10(d)(1)–(4) .......... § 63.10(d)(5) ................ § 63.10(e)–(f) ............... § 63.11(a)–(b) .............. § 63.11(c) ..................... § 63.11(d) ..................... § 63.11(e) ..................... § 63.12 ......................... § 63.13 ......................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 SSM Exemption .............................................. ......................................................................... SSM Exemption .............................................. ......................................................................... Performance Testing Requirements ............... Conduct of Performance Tests ....................... ......................................................................... Data Analysis, Recordkeeping, and Reporting ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Monitoring Requirements ................................ General Duty to Minimize Emissions and CMS Operation. ......................................................................... Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS ......................................................................... Written Procedures for CMS ........................... ......................................................................... Applicability and General Information ............. Initial Notifications ........................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements General Recordkeeping Requirements .......... Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. Recordkeeping of Malfunctions ...................... Maintenance Records ..................................... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSM. Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions ............ Other CMS Requirements .............................. Recordkeeping Requirement for Applicability Determinations. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for CMS—Identifying Exceedances and Excess Emissions. ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Use of SSM Plan ............................................ General Reporting Requirements ................... SSM Reports ................................................... Additional CMS Reports Excess Emission/ CMS Performance Reports COMS Data Reports Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver. Control Device Requirements Applicability Flares. Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring Equipment for Leaks. Alternative Work Practice Standard ................ ......................................................................... State Authority and Delegations ..................... Addresses ....................................................... 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Yes. No ............................... No ............................... No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. No. Yes. Yes, except for last sentence, which refers to SSM plan. SSM plans are not required.. Yes. Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No ............................... Explanation § 63.1187(b) ments. specifies [Reserved]. Startups and § 63.1197. additional shutdowns require- addressed in See § 63.1180. [Reserved]. See § 63.1180(e) for general duty requirement. [Reserved]. See § 63.1193(c) for recordkeeping of (ii) occurrence and duration and (iii) actions taken during malfunction. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No ............................... No ............................... Yes. No. Yes. No ............................... Yes. No ............................... [Reserved]. See § 63.1192 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. See § 63.1193(f) for reporting of malfunctions. Flares will not be used to comply with the emissions limits. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45333 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1 TO SUBPART DDD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART DDD—Continued General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart DDD? § 63.14 ......................... § 63.15 ......................... § 63.16 ......................... Incorporation by Reference ............................ Information Availability/Confidentiality ............ Performance Track Provisions ........................ Explanation Yes. Yes. Yes. 17. Subpart DDD is amended by adding Table 2 to read as follows: ■ TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DDD OF PART 63—EMISSIONS LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE DATES If your source is a: And you commenced construction: Your emission limits are: 1 And you must comply by: 2 1. Cupola ............................................. 2. Cupola ............................................. 3. Cupola ............................................. On or before May 8, 1997 ................... After May 8, 1997 ................................ On or before May 8, 1997 ................... June 2, 2002. June 1, 1999. June 2, 2002. 4. Cupola ............................................. After May 8, 1997 but on or before November 25, 2011. 5. Closed-top cupola ............................ On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 6. 7. 8. 9. Closed-top cupola ............................ Open-top cupola .............................. Open-top cupola .............................. Cupola using slag as a raw material After November 25, 2011 .................... On or before November 25, 2011 ....... After November 25, 2011 .................... On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 10. Cupola using slag as a raw material. 11. Cupola not using slag as a raw material. 12. Cupola not using slag as a raw material. 17. Curing oven ................................... After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.10 lb PM per ton of melt .................. 0.10 lb PM per ton of melt .................. a. 0.10 lb carbon monoxide (CO) per ton of melt,3 or b. Reduction of uncontrolled CO by at least 99 percent 3. a. 0.10 lb CO per ton of melt,3 or b. Reduction of uncontrolled CO by at least 99 percent.3 3.4 lb of carbonyl sulfide (COS) per ton melt. 0.062 lb of COS per ton melt .............. 6.8 lb of COS per ton melt .................. 3.2 lb of COS per ton melt .................. 0.16 lb of hydrogen fluoride (HF) per ton melt. 0.44 lb of hydrogen chloride (HCl) per ton melt. 0.015 lb of HF per ton melt ................. 0.012 lb of HCl per ton melt. 0.13 lb of HF per ton melt ................... 0.43 lb of HCl per ton melt. 0.018 lb of HF per ton melt ................. 0.015 lb of HCl per ton melt. a. 0.06 lb of formaldehyde per ton of melt,3 or b. Reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde by at least 80 percent.3 a. 0.06 lb of formaldehyde per ton of melt,3 or b. Reduction of uncontrolled formaldehyde by at least 80 percent.3 0.17 lb of formaldehyde per ton of melt. 0.28 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.85 lb of phenol per ton melt. 0.17 lb of formaldehyde per ton of melt. 0.28 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.85 lb of phenol per ton melt. 0.63 lb of formaldehyde per ton of melt. 0.049 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.12 lb of phenol per ton melt. 0.63 lb of formaldehyde per ton of melt. 0.049 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.12 lb of phenol per ton melt. 2.4 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt .... 0.92 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.71 lb of phenol per ton melt. 2.4 lb of formaldehyde per ton melt .... 0.92 lb of methanol per ton melt. 0.71 lb of phenol per ton melt. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... After November 25, 2011 .................... On or before May 8, 1997 ................... After May 8, 1997 but before November 25, 2011. 19. Combined drum collection/curing operation. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 20. Combined drum collection/curing operation. After November 25, 2011 .................... 21. Combined horizontal collection/ curing operation. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 22. Combined horizontal collection/ curing operation. After November 25, 2011 .................... 23. Combined vertical collection/curing operation. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 18. Curing oven ................................... On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 24. Combined vertical collection/curing operation. After November 25, 2011 .................... 1 The June 1, 1999. July 30, 2018. July July July July 29, 30, 29, 30, 2015.4 2018. 2015.4 2018. July 29, 2015.4 July 30, 2018. July 29, 2015.4 June 2, 2002. June 1, 1999. July 30, 2018. July 29, 2015.4 July 30, 2018. July 29, 2015.4 July 30, 2018. July 29, 2015.4 numeric emissions limits do not apply during startup and shutdown. sources must demonstrate compliance by the compliance dates specified in this table. New sources have 180 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate compliance. 3 This emissions limit does not apply after July 30, 2018. 4 Or upon initial startup, whichever is later. 2 Existing VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45334 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations Subpart NNN—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing 18. Section 63.1380 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: ■ § 63.1380 Applicability. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass manufacturing line producing a bonded product. * * * * * ■ 19. Section 63.1381 is amended by: ■ a. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ‘‘Gas-fired glass-melting furnace’’; and ■ b. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Incinerator’’ and ‘‘New source’’. The addition and revisions read as follows: § 63.1381 Definitions. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 * * * * * Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations, superstructure and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat exchangers, exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical boosting equipment, integral control systems and instrumentation, and appendages for conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming processes. The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not considered part of the gas-fired glassmelting furnace. Cold-top electric furnaces as defined in this subpart are not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. * * * * * Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to noncombustible gases. For the purposes of this subpart, the term ‘‘incinerator’’ means ‘‘regenerative thermal oxidizer’’. * * * * * New source means any affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after March 31, 1997 for purposes of determining the applicability of the emission limits in rows 1, 2 and 7 through 11 in Table 2. New source means any affected source that commences construction or reconstruction after November 25, 2011 for purposes of determining the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 applicability of all other emissions limits. * * * * * ■ 20. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraph (a), redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and adding new pargraph (b) and paragraph (c)(11) to read as follows: § 63.1382 Emission standards. (a) You must control emissions from each glass-melting furnace, rotary spin manufacturing line, and flame attenuation manufacturing line as specified in Table 2 to this subpart. (b) On or after July 29, 2015 to reduce emissions of hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride from each existing, new, or reconstructed glass-melting furnace, you must either: (1) Require cullet providers to provide records of their inspections showing that no glass from industrial (also known as continuous strand, or textile) fiberglass, cathode ray tubes (CRT), computer monitors that include CRT, and glass from microwave ovens, televisions or other electronics is included in the cullet; or (2) Sample your raw materials and maintain records of your sampling showing that the cullet is free of glass from industrial fiberglass, cathode ray tubes, computer monitors that include cathode ray tubes, and glass from microwave ovens, televisions or other electronics. (c) * * * (11) The owner or operator must maintain the percentage of cullet in the materials mix for each gas-fired glassmelting furnace at or below the level established during the performance test as specified in § 63.1384(a)(4). ■ 21. Section 63.1383 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (m) to read as follows: § 63.1383 Monitoring requirements. * * * * * (f) If you use a control device to control HAP emissions from a glassmelting furnace, RS manufacturing line, or FA manufacturing line, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures an appropriate parameter for the control device. You must establish the value of that parameter during the performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limit as specified in Table 2 to this subpart. * * * * * (m) For all control device and process operating parameters measured during the initial performance tests, including the materials mix used in the test, you PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 may change the limits established during the initial performance tests if you conduct additional performance testing to verify that, at the new control device or process parameter levels, you comply with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart. You must conduct all additional performance tests according to the procedures in this part 63, subpart A and in § 63.1384. ■ 22. Section 63.1384 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (c) introductory text, and the definitions of ‘‘E’’, ‘‘C’’, and ‘‘MW’’, and adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: § 63.1384 Performance test requirements. (a) * * * (4) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for each existing and new gas-fired glass-melting furnace. During the performance test of each gas-fired glass-melting furnace, the owner or operator must measure and record the materials mix, including the percentages of raw materials and cullet, melted in the furnace during the performance test. * * * * * (c) To determine compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, for formaldehyde for RS manufacturing lines; formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for FA manufacturing lines; and chromium compounds for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, use the following equation: * * * * * E = Emission rate of formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, chromium compounds, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of glass pulled; C = Measured volume fraction of formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, chromium compounds, ppm; MW = Molecular weight of formaldehyde, 30.03 g/g-mol; molecular weight of phenol, 94.11 g/g-mol; molecular weight of methanol, 32.04 g/g-mol; molecular weight of chromium compounds tested in g/g-mol. * * * * * (d) Following the initial performance or compliance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the chromium compounds emissions limit specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must conduct an annual performance test for chromium compounds emissions from each gas-fired glassmelting furnace (no later than 12 calendar months following the previous compliance test). (e) Following the initial performance or compliance test to demonstrate compliance with the PM, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test to E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable PM, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions limits in § 63.1382 at least once every five years. ■ 23. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6), redesignating paragraph (a)(10) as paragraph (a)(13), and adding paragraphs (a)(10) through (12) to read as follows: mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 § 63.1385 Test methods and procedures. (a) * * * (5) Method 5 or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) for the concentration of total PM. When using Method 5, each run must consist of a minimum sample volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm). When using Method 29, each run must consist of a minimum sample volume of 3 dscm. When measuring PM concentration using either Method 5 or 29, the probe and filter holder heating system must be set to provide a gas temperature no greater than 120±14°C (248±25 °F). (6) For measuring the concentration of formaldehyde, use one of the following test methods: (i) Method 318 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must consist of a minimum of 10 spectra. (ii) Method 316 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must consist of a minimum of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) of sample volume. * * * * * (10) For measuring the concentration of phenol, use Method 318 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must consist of a minimum of 10 spectra. (11) For measuring the concentration of methanol, use one of the following test methods: (i) Method 318 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must consist of a minimum of 10 spectra. (ii) Method 308 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must consist of a minimum of 2 hours. (12) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–8) for the concentration of chromium compounds. Each test run must consist of a minimum sample volume of 3 dscm. * * * * * ■ 24. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) through (4), removing and reserving paragraph (b), revising paragraph (c), and adding paragraphs (d)(2)(x) and (xi), (f) and (g) to read as follows: § 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. (a) * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 (2) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where the initial startup is before November 25, 2011. (3) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where the source is new or has been reconstructed the initial startup is after November 25, 2011, and for which an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is not required; (4) Notification of intention to construct a new affected source or reconstruct an affected source; of the date construction or reconstruction commenced; of the anticipated date of startup; of the actual date of startup, where the initial startup of a new or reconstructed source occurs after November 25, 2011, and for which an application for approval or construction or reconstruction is required (See § 63.9(b)(4) and (5)); * * * * * (c) Records and reports for a failure to meet a standard. (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet a standard, record the number of failures since the prior notification of compliance status. For each failure record the date, time, and duration of each failure. (2) For each failure to meet a standard record and retain a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.1382, including corrective actions to restore process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation. (4) If an affected unit fails to meet a standard, report such events in the notification of compliance status required by § 63.1386(a)(7). Report the number of failures to meet a standard since the prior notification. For each instance, report the date, time, and duration of each failure. For each failure the report must include a list of the affected units or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (d) * * * (2) * * * (x) Records of your cullet sampling or records of inspections from cullet providers. (xi) For each gas-fired glass-melting furnace that uses cullet, records of the daily average cullet percentage, and the 30-day rolling average percent cullet in the materials mix charged to the PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 45335 furnace. The initial daily average should be recorded on the compliance date and the first 30-day rolling average should be calculated 30 days after the compliance date. * * * * * (f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (as defined in § 63.2) required in this subpart, you must submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated fuel analyses, following the procedure specified in either paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this section. (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site (https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ index.html), you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit performance test data in an electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, once the XML schema is available. If you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, you must submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. (g) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraph (f) of this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45336 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations operator of a source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (f) of this section in paper format. ■ 25. Section 63.1387 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 63.1387 Compliance dates. (a) Compliance dates. You must comply with the emissions limits by the dates specified in Table 2 to this subpart. * * * * * (c) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. ■ 26. Section 63.1389 is added to read as follows: § 63.1389 Startups and shutdowns. (a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times. (b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are required or utilized for compliance with the provisions of this subpart during times when emissions are being, or are otherwise required to be, routed to such items of equipment. (c) Startup begins when the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace has any raw materials added and reaches 50 percent of its typical operating temperature. Startup ends when molten glass begins to flow from the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace. For cold-top electric furnaces, startup ends when the batch cover is established and the temperature of the glass batch-cover surface is below 300 °F. (d) Shutdown begins when the heat sources to the glass-melting furnace are reduced to begin the glass-melting furnace shut down process. Shutdown ends when the glass-melting furnace is empty or the contents are sufficiently viscous to preclude glass flow from the glass-melting furnace. (e) During periods of startup and shutdown in a cold-top furnace that is routed to a baghouse during normal operation, you must establish the batch cover and operate your furnace according to the following requirements during startup and shutdown: (1) You must keep records showing that you used only natural gas or other clean fuels to heat each furnace; and (2) Except after batch cover is established, you must keep records showing that you used only cullet as a raw material during the startup of each cold-top furnace; and (3) Once a batch cover is established and a control device can be safely operated, you must keep records showing that furnace emissions were controlled using air pollution control devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard. (4) During periods of shutdown in a cold-top furnace, until the conditions above the glass reach a point at which the control device may be damaged if it continues to operate, you must keep records showing furnace emissions were controlled using air pollution control devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard. (f) During both periods of startups and shutdowns for all furnace types other than cold-top furnaces, you must operate each furnace according to the following requirements: (1) You must record the type of fuel used to heat the furnace during startup and shutdown to demonstrate that you used only natural gas or other clean fuels; and (2) You must keep records showing that furnace emissions were controlled using air pollution control devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed compliance with the standard. ■ 27. Table 1 to subpart NNN of part 63 is revised to read as follows: TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART NNN mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart NNN? § 63.1(a)(1)–(5) ............ § 63.1(a)(6) .................. § 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ............ § 63.1(a)(10)–(12) ........ § 63.1(b)(1) .................. § 63.1(b)(2) .................. § 63.1(b)(3) .................. § 63.1(c)(1)–(2) ............ § 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ............ § 63.1(c)(5)–(e) ............ § 63.2 ........................... § 63.3 ........................... § 63.4(a)(1)–(2) ............ § 63.4(a)(3)–(5) ............ § 63.4(b)–(c) ................ § 63.5(a)–(b)(2) ............ § 63.5(b)(3)–(4) ............ § 63.5(b)(5) .................. § 63.5(b)(6) .................. § 63.5(c) ....................... § 63.5(d) ....................... Applicability ..................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Initial Applicability Determination .................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Definitions ....................................................... Units and Abbreviations .................................. Prohibited Activities ......................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability ....... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Application for Approval of Construction or Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction ....... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on State Review. Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. No ............................... Yes. § 63.5(e) ....................... § 63.5(f) ........................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Explanation [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. [Reserved]. Yes. Yes. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 45337 TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART NNN—Continued General provisions citation Requirement § 63.6(a)–(d) ................ Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements. General Duty to Minimize Emissions .............. § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ............... § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) .............. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............. § 63.6(e)(2) .................. § 63.6(e)(3) .................. § 63.6(f)(1) ................... § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............. § 63.6(g) ....................... § 63.6(h)(1) .................. § 63.6(h)(2)–(j) ............. § 63.7(a)–(d) ................ § 63.7(e)(1) .................. § 63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4) ....... § 63.7(f) ........................ § 63.7(g)(1) .................. § 63.7(g)(2) .................. § 63.7(g)(3) .................. § 63.7(h) ....................... § 63.8(a)–(b) ................ § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ............... § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .............. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .............. § 63.8(d)(1)–(2) ............ § 63.8(d)(3) .................. § 63.8(e)–(g) ................ § 63.9(a) ....................... § 63.9(b)(1)–(2) ............ § 63.9(b)(3) .................. § 63.9(b)(4)–(j) ............. § 63.10(a) ..................... § 63.10(b)(1) ................ § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............. § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............ § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ........... § 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ..... Requirement to Correct Malfunctions As Soon As Possible. ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM) Plan .. SSM Exemption .............................................. Methods for Determining Compliance ............ Use of an Alternative Nonopacity Emission Standard. SSM Exemption .............................................. ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Performance Testing ....................................... ......................................................................... Alternative Test Method .................................. Data Analysis .................................................. ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Waiver of Performance Test ........................... Monitoring Requirements ................................ General Duty to Minimize Emissions and CMS Operation. ......................................................................... Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS Quality Control Program ................................. Written Procedures for CMS ........................... ......................................................................... Notification Requirements ............................... Initial Notifications ........................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements General Recordkeeping Requirements .......... Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. Recordkeeping of Malfunctions ...................... § 63.10(c)(9) ................ § 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ...... Maintenance Records ..................................... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSM. Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions ............ Other CMS Requirements .............................. Recordkeeping Requirements for Applicability Determinations. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources with CMS. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for CMS—Identifying Exceedances and Excess Emissions. ......................................................................... ......................................................................... § 63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) .. § 63.10(c)(15) .............. § 63.10(d)(1)–(4) .......... § 63.10(d)(5) ................ ......................................................................... Use of SSM Plan ............................................ General Reporting Requirements ................... SSM Reports ................................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) ........... § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv) .. § 63.10(b)(3) ................ § 63.10(c)(1)–(6) .......... § 63.10(c)(7)–(8) .......... mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Applies to subpart NNN? VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Explanation Yes. No ............................... No ............................... Yes. No ............................... No ............................... See § 63.1382(b) for general duty requirement. § 63.1382(b) specifies additional requirements. [Reserved]. Startups and § 63.1388. shutdowns addressed in No. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. No. Yes. Yes, except for last sentence, which refers to SSM plan. SSM plans are not required. Yes. Yes. Yes. No ............................... Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No ............................... See § 63.1382(b). [Reserved]. See § 63.1382(c) for general duty requirement. [Reserved]. See § 63.1386 (c)(1) through (3) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration and actions taken during a failure to meet a standard. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No ............................... No ............................... Yes. No. Yes. No ............................... Sfmt 4700 [Reserved]. See § 63.1386 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. See § 63.1386(c)(iii) for reporting of malfunctions. E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2 45338 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO SUBPART NNN—Continued General provisions citation Requirement § 63.10(e)–(f) ............... Additional CMS Reports Excess Emission/ CMS Performance Reports COMS Data Reports Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver. Control Device Requirements Applicability Flares. Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring Equipment for Leaks. Alternative Work Practice Standard ................ Alternative Work Practice Requirements ........ State Authority and Delegations ..................... Addresses ....................................................... Incorporation by Reference ............................ Availability of Information/Confidentiality ........ Performance Track Provisions ........................ § 63.11(a)–(b) .............. § 63.11(c) ..................... § 63.11(d) ..................... § 63.11(e) ..................... § 63.12 ......................... § 63.13 ......................... § 63.14 ......................... § 63.15 ......................... § 63.16 ......................... Applies to subpart NNN? Explanation Yes. No ............................... Flares will not be used to comply with the emissions limits. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 28. Subpart NNN is amended by adding Table 2 to read as follows: ■ TABLE 2 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—EMISSIONS LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE DATES If your source is a: And you commenced construction: Your emission limits are: 1 And you must comply by: 2 1. Glass-melting furnace ...................... 2. Glass-melting furnace ...................... 0.5 lb PM per ton of glass pulled 3 ...... 0.5 lb PM per ton of glass pulled 3 ...... June 14, 2002. June 14, 1999. 3. Glass-melting furnace ...................... 4. Glass-melting furnace ...................... 5. Gas-fired glass-melting furnace ...... On or before March 31, 1997 ............. After March 31, 1997 but on or before November 25, 2011. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... After November 25, 2011 .................... On or before November 25, 2011 ....... July 31, 2017. July 29, 2015.4 July 31, 2017. 6. Gas-fired glass-melting furnace ...... After November 25, 2011 .................... 7. Rotary spin manufacturing line ........ On or before March 31, 1997 ............. 8. Rotary spin manufacturing line ........ After March 31, 1997 .......................... 9. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a heavy-density product. 10. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a pipe product. 11. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing a pipe product. 12. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing any product. After March 31, 1997 but on or before November 25, 2011. On or before March 31, 1997 ............. 13. Flame-attenuation line manufacturing any product. After November 25, 2011 .................... 0.33 lb PM per ton of glass pulled ...... 0.33 lb PM per ton of glass pulled ...... 0.00025 lb chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled. 0.00025 lb chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled. 1.2 lb Formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled. 0.8 lb Formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled. 7.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 3. 6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 3. 6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled 3. 1.4 lb phenol per ton of glass pulled .. 5.6 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled. 0.50 lb methanol per ton of glass pulled. 0.44 lb phenol per ton of glass pulled 2.6 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled. 0.35 lb methanol per ton of glass pulled. After March 31, 1997 but before November 25, 2011. On or before November 25, 2011 ....... 1 The July 29, 2015.4 June 14, 2002. June 14, 1999. June 14, 1999. June 14, 2002. June 14, 1999. July 31, 2017. July 29, 2015.4 numeric limits do not apply during startup and shutdown. sources must demonstrate compliance by the compliance dates specified in this table. New sources have 180 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate compliance. 3 This limit does not apply after July 31, 2017. 4 Or initial startup, whichever is later. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 2 Existing [FR Doc. 2015–16643 Filed 7–28–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:59 Jul 28, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\29JYR2.SGM 29JYR2

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45279-45338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16643]

[[Page 45279]]

Vol. 80

Wednesday,

No. 145

July 29, 2015

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral
Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 45280]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-9928-71-OAR]
RIN 2060-AQ90

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology reviews
(RTR) conducted for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source categories regulated under national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). Under this action, we
are establishing pollutant-specific emissions limits for hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) that were previously regulated (under a surrogate) and
for HAP that were previously unregulated. This action finalizes first-
time generally available control technologies (GACT) standards for gas-
fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities that are area sources. We are also amending regulatory
provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM); adding requirements for reporting of performance
testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT); and making several
minor clarifications and corrections. The revisions in these final
rules increase the level of emissions control and environmental
protection provided by the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP.

DATES: This final action is effective on July 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established
two dockets for this action under Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041
(for 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 (for 40 CFR
part 63, subparts NNN and NN). All documents in these dockets are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room
Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Ms. Susan Fairchild, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D
234-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5167; fax number: (919)
541-5600; and email address: fairchild.susan@epa.gov. For specific
information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. Chris
Sarsony, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541-4843; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address:
sarsony.chris@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of the
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Sara Ayres, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code E-19J, Chicago,
IL 60604-3507; telephone number: (312) 343-6266; and email address:
ayres.sara@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ADAF Age-dependent adjustment factors
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APA Administrative Procedures Act
BDL Below detection limit
BFS Batch Formulation System
CAA Clean Air Act
CA-REL California reference exposure level
CBI Confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS Continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon monoxide
COS Carbonyl sulfide
CPMS Continuous parameter monitoring system
Cr Chromium
CRA Congressional Review Act
CRT Cathode ray tube
DESP Dry electrostatic precipitator
dscm Dry standard cubic meters
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP Electrostatic precipitator
FA Flame attenuation
FR Federal Register
GACT Generally available control technology
HAP Hazardous air pollutants
HCl Hydrogen chloride
HEPA High efficiency particulate air
HF Hydrogen fluoride
HQ Hazard quotient
ICR Information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
Lb/ton Pounds per ton
LOI Loss on ignition
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
MDL Minimum detection limit
MIR Maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAIMA North American Insulation Manufacturers Association
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOX Nitrogen oxide
NPV Net present value
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NSSN National Standards Systems Network
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP Persistent and Bioaccumulative-HAP
PM Particulate matter
ppm Parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RACT/BACT/LAER Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best
Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDL Representative detection limit
REL Recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RS Rotary spin
RTR Risk and Technology Review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SBAR Small Business Analytical Review
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SSM Startup, shutdown, malfunction
TOSHI Target organ specific hazard index
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL Upper prediction limit

[[Page 45281]]

VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards

Background Information. On November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72770), the EPA
proposed revisions to the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP based on our RTR under Clean Air Act (CAA)
sections 112(f)(2) and (d)(6). We proposed chromium compounds emissions
limits for wool fiberglass furnaces at major sources after finding that
chromium refractories used to construct furnaces degrade with age and
emit continuously-increasing levels of chromium compounds. These
findings were the result of emissions testing conducted on these types
of furnaces indicating significant amounts (550 pounds) of chromium
emissions, 93 percent of which was in the hexavalent (most toxic) form.
The furnaces tested were considered representative of all furnaces at
each facility. In the November 2011 proposal, we also announced that we
had already issued a new information collection request (ICR) to the
wool fiberglass industry to collect data on chromium emissions and
chromium refractory use at all operating wool fiberglass furnaces with
the intent of regulating area sources in a future action.
In the November 2011 proposal we also proposed to discontinue using
formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol in both the Mineral
Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories and
to discontinue using carbon monoxide (CO) as a surrogate for carbonyl
sulfide (COS) in the Mineral Wool Production source category. This
revision was proposed because we found that the surrogate for each
pollutant is not necessarily a reasonable representation of the
pollutant-specific emissions for these source categories (e.g.,
formaldehyde is not invariably present in the binder formulation). We
proposed maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards under
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the HAP phenol and methanol in both
source categories, and COS in the Mineral Wool Production source
category. We also proposed MACT standards for hydrogen fluoride (HF)
and hydrochloric acid (HCl), which are emitted from these source
categories, but were not regulated under the MACT standard.
On April 15, 2013 (78 FR 22370), the EPA issued a supplemental
proposal that was based on comments to the November 2011 proposal and
new information on processes in both source categories. New emissions
test data for all wool fiberglass furnaces across the industry showed
that the same types of furnaces were in operation at both major and
area sources, but that the emissions profile of electric furnaces
differed from that of gas-fired furnaces (i.e., emissions that could
endanger public health). In that notice, we listed wool fiberglass
manufacturing area sources, and proposed chromium emission limits for
gas-fired wool fiberglass furnaces at area sources, and announced that
the chromium limits at major sources would be specific to gas-fired
furnaces (such as air-gas and oxyfuel furnaces) and not electric
furnaces (such as cold-top and steel shell furnaces).
On November 13, 2014 (79 FR 68012), the EPA issued a second
supplemental proposal to explain changes to previously proposed
emissions limits for sources in these source categories. We proposed
work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) in lieu of certain
emissions limits, and clarified our use of the upper predictive limit
(UPL) in setting MACT floors. In this action, we are finalizing
decisions and revisions for these rules. We summarize some of the more
significant comments we received regarding the proposed rules and
provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public
comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is
available in the memorandum, ``National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing (Risk and Technology Review)--Summary of Public Comments
and Responses'' (Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041 and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1042). ``Track-changes'' versions of the regulatory language that
incorporates the changes in this action are available in the respective
dockets.

Organization of This Document

The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the Mineral Wool Production source category and how
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the Mineral Wool Production
source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013
supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal?
D. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
E. What changes did we propose for major sources in the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011
proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13,
2014 supplemental proposal?
F. What did we propose for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal;
April 15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014
supplemental proposal?
III. What is Included in the Final Mineral Wool Production Rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Mineral Wool Production source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Mineral Wool Production source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Mineral Wool Production source category?
D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of startup and shutdown for the Mineral Wool
Production source category?
E. What other changes have been made to the Mineral Wool
Production NESHAP?
F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the new MACT
standards for the Mineral Wool Production source category?
G. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Mineral Wool Production source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source
Category
B. Technology Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source
Category
C. MACT Standards for Pollutants Previously Regulated Under a
Surrogate and Previously Unregulated Pollutants
D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions for the Mineral
Wool Production Source Category
E. Other Changes Made to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP
V. What is Included in the Final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule
for major sources?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source
category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source
category?
C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major
sources) source category?
D. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section
112(h) for the

[[Page 45282]]

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?
E. What are the final rule amendments for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing (major sources) source category addressing emissions
during periods of startup and shutdown?
F. What other changes have been made to the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP (major sources)?
G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
H. What is the status of the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT
standard amendments under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS
Manufacturing Lines?
I. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP?
VI. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?
A. Residual Risk Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Source Category (Major Sources)
B. Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Source Category (Major Sources)
C. MACT Standards for Pollutants Previously Regulated Under a
Surrogate and Previously Unregulated Pollutants for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources)
D. Work Practice Standards for HCl and HF Emissions From
Furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major
Sources)
E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources)
F. Other Changes Made to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
NESHAP (Major and Area Sources)
VII. What is included in the Final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Rule for area sources?
A. Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources
B. What are the final requirements for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing area sources?
C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources?
D. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources?
VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS \a\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral Wool Production................................. 327993
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing........................... 327993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source categories listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Internet through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy
of this final action at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/woolfib/woolfipg
and at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/minwool/minwopg. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical documents at this same Web site.
Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites for the RTR
source categories and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 28,
2015. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this
final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule ``[i]f the
person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that
it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for
public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the
period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial
review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of
the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA, WJC West Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

[[Page 45283]]

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per
year or more, or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAP.
For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology or MACT standards and must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems or techniques, including but not limited to
those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture,
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards; or any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor, under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see the November 25, 2011, proposal (76 FR 72773).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this approach of
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077,
1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing
technology-based standards provide an 'ample margin of safety,' then
the Agency is free to readopt those standards during the residual
risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAA sections 112(c)(3), (d)(5), and (k)(3) address regulation of
area sources. Collectively, these sections are the basis of the Area
Source Program under the Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy).\2\ Area
sources are those that emit less than the major source threshold of HAP
(i.e., less than 10 tons per year of a single pollutant or 25 tons per
year of a combination of HAP. Under the Strategy, we must regulate
emissions of the 30 most toxic HAP emitted by area sources, based on
generally available control technology (GACT), at a minimum. These
provisions do not require the EPA to regulate all HAP from all HAP-
emitting processes as we must do when setting MACT standards. On April
15, 2013, consistent with the Strategy, the agency added gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces located at area sources to the source category
list \3\ \4\ and proposed emissions standards for particulate matter
(PM) and chromium compounds from these sources at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities (78 FR 22370). On November 13, 2014, we
withdrew our previously proposed GACT limits for PM and proposed to
only require total chromium compounds emissions limits for these
sources. Reduction of PM is accomplished through chromium reductions
because chromium is the toxic pollutant entrained within PM that is
emitted by these sources. We are finalizing GACT limits for chromium
compound emissions for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing area source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ For EPA's document on the Urban Air Toxics Strategy, see 64
FR 38706-38715-716 (July 19, 1999).
\3\ For the listing documents of the Strategy, see 64 FR 38075,
July 19, 1999; 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002; 67 FR 70427, November 22,
2002; 73 FR 78637, December 23, 2008; and 74 FR 30366, June 25,
2009.
\4\ We have made several revisions to the CAA section 112(c)(3)
list since its issuance: 67 FR 43112, June 26, 2002; 67 FR 70427,
November 22, 2002; 73 FR 78637, December 23, 2008; 74 FR 30366, June
25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With this regulation, pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and
(k)(3)(B), the agency will have subjected additional sources to
regulation for the urban metal HAP chromium compounds, which is wholly
consistent with the goals of the Strategy. For more information on the
statutory authority for this rule, see the November 25, 2011,
supplemental proposal (76 FR 72770), the April 15, 2013, supplemental
proposal (78 FR 22375-22376), and the November 13, 2014, supplemental
proposal (79 FR 68012).

B. What is the Mineral Wool Production source category and how does the
NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

The EPA promulgated the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP on June 1,
1999 (64 FR 29490). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDD. The Mineral Wool Production industry consists of
facilities that produce mineral wool fiber from slag, rock, or other
materials, excluding sand or glass. The source category covered by this
MACT standard currently consists of eight facilities.
Mineral wool is a material used mainly for thermal and acoustical
insulation. This category includes, but is not limited to, the
following process units: A cupola furnace for melting the mineral
charge; a blow chamber in which air and, in some cases, a binder are
drawn over the fibers, forming them to a screen; a curing oven to bond
the fibers; and a cooling compartment. The 1999 NESHAP rule set
emissions limits

[[Page 45284]]

for PM from new and existing cupolas, CO from new cupolas, and
formaldehyde from new and existing curing ovens.

C. What changes did we propose for the Mineral Wool Production source
category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April 15, 2013 supplemental
proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental proposal?

On November 25, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule for the
Mineral Wool Production NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD, that
proposed RTR amendments to this standard under CAA sections 112(d)(6)
and (f)(2). In that proposal, we stated that maximum individual risk
(MIR) for cancer was 4-in-1 million based on available test data for
actual emissions and 10-in-1 million based on the MACT-allowable
emission limits of the rule. We proposed, considering all available
information, that risks were acceptable.
For PM, we reviewed the control technologies in use by the industry
and did not find any improvements or developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies since the 1999 MACT standard was
promulgated. Therefore, we did not propose amendments to the PM
standards under either CAA sections 112(f)(2) or (d)(6).
We also proposed to discontinue use of surrogates where we
determined that the surrogacy was not reasonable. We proposed to
discontinue using CO as a surrogate for COS, and to discontinue use of
formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol. Based on new
source test data and CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), we proposed MACT
floor emission limits for existing and new sources of COS, phenol, and
methanol, pollutants that were previously regulated under a surrogate;
and MACT floor emission limits for formaldehyde, the former surrogate.
We retained PM as a surrogate for non-mercury HAP metals because there
is a reasonable surrogate relationship. We also proposed emissions
limits for HF and HCl, two pollutants that were previously unregulated,
and proposed alternative emission limits for periods of startup and
shutdown.
On April 15, 2013, we published a supplemental proposal for the
Mineral Wool Production NESHAP that took into consideration the
comments received on the November 2011 proposal, new emissions testing
for horizontal lines, and subcategorization of cupolas based on design
and raw material use. We withdrew our previously-proposed alternative
emission limits for startup and shutdown, and instead proposed that
sources may demonstrate compliance with the MACT floor emission limits
during periods of startup and shutdown by keeping records showing that
the emissions from cupolas were routed to air pollution control devices
operated at the parameters established by the most recent performance
test that showed compliance with the standard.
On November 13, 2014, the EPA published a second supplemental
proposal for the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP that took into
consideration comments received on the 2013 supplemental proposal,
explained changes to previously proposed MACT limits for sources in
this source category and clarified our use of the UPL in setting the
MACT floors. In that proposal, we also proposed work practice standards
under CAA section 112(h) for periods of startup and shutdown based on
the practices used by the best performers among mineral wool producers
to minimize emissions during these activities.

D. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and how
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

The EPA promulgated the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP on
June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part
63, subpart NNN. The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category is
defined as any facility engaged in producing wool fiberglass from sand,
feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid or any other
materials. The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing industry consists of
facilities that produce bonded building insulation using a rotary spin
(RS) manufacturing line, and facilities that produce bonded pipe
insulation and bonded heavy-density products using a flame attenuation
(FA) manufacturing line. The 1999 MACT standards currently apply to 10
major sources in the wool fiberglass industry. Another 20 facilities
are area sources.
Wool fiberglass is used primarily as a thermal and acoustical
insulation for buildings, automobiles, aircraft, appliances, ductwork
and pipes. This category includes, but is not limited to, the following
process units: A furnace for melting the mineral charge; a bonded line
operation in which air and a binder are drawn over the fibers and cured
in an oven to bond the fibers; and a cooling compartment. The 1999
NESHAP rule set emissions limits for PM from new and existing glass-
melting furnaces and formaldehyde emissions from new FA and new and
existing RS bonded lines.

E. What changes did we propose for major sources in the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April
15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental
proposal?

On November 25, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule for the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP to amend the standard based on our
RTR analyses. In that proposal, we found under CAA section 112(f)(2)
that the MIR for cancer, primarily due to emissions of hexavalent
chromium and formaldehyde, was 40-in-1 million based on actual
emissions and 60-in-1 million based on MACT-allowable emissions. The
maximum chronic non-cancer target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI)
value based on actual emissions was 0.2 with emissions of formaldehyde
dominating those impacts. The acute noncancer hazard quotient (HQ),
based on the recommended exposure limit (REL) for formaldehyde, was 30.
The acute noncancer HQ, based on the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
(AEGL-1) for formaldehyde, was 2. We determined that nothing prevents
construction of a high chromium emitting furnace at any wool fiberglass
facility. Therefore, we evaluated risk under an auxiliary risk
assessment which asked, ``if all wool fiberglass facilities emitted
hexavalent chromium at the level of the highest emitter (that is, 450
pounds of hexavalent chromium annually), what would be the risk to
human health?'' The MIR under the auxiliary risk analysis exceeded 100-
in-one million at four facilities, a level we consider unacceptable.
Although the risk from actual emissions were considered to be well
within a level we consider acceptable, we proposed that risk due to
hexavalent chromium could be further reduced to achieve an ample margin
of safety. The chromium compounds limit would also prevent operation of
another high-chromium emitting furnace in this source category. We
therefore proposed chromium compounds emission limits of 0.00006 pounds
of chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled, under CAA section
112(f)(2).
We proposed under CAA section 112(d)(6) that the control
technologies in place on wool fiberglass manufacturing furnaces were
essentially the same as existed at the time the MACT standards were
promulgated, but that there have been improvements in both the
operation and the design of furnaces and their control technologies
since that time. As a result, we proposed

[[Page 45285]]

emissions limits for both PM and total chromium compounds for gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces at major sources, under CAA section 112(d)(6),
and indicated our intent to list and regulate chromium compounds at
area sources in a future action.
In the November 2011 proposal, similar to how we addressed the
mineral wool source category, we also proposed in wool fiberglass to
discontinue use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol and methanol
because the surrogacy was not reasonable. We proposed phenol,
formaldehyde, and methanol MACT floor emission limits based on
information collected in 2010 for two subcategories of bonded lines
under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We proposed limits for FA lines
that apply to all lines without further subcategorization, and proposed
alternative emission limits for periods of startup and shutdown. In
that notice, we also announced that we had issued an ICR under our
section 114 authority to gather additional emission information on
furnace chromium emissions.
In our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we took into consideration
comments received on the November 2011 proposal, new process and
chromium emissions test data, and related furnace data collected under
a CAA section 114 ICR.
We further proposed revised PM emission limits for glass-melting
furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major
sources under CAA section 112(d)(6), presented the results of the new
chromium emission testing collected from glass-melting furnaces, and
required that the chromium emission limits proposed under CAA sections
112(d)(6) and (f)(2) would apply only to gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces at major sources. We proposed an alternative compliance
provision for startup and shutdown that would require sources to keep
records showing that emissions were routed to the air pollution control
devices and that these control devices were operated at the parameters
established during the most recent performance test that showed
compliance with the applicable emission limits. For electric cold-top
furnaces, we proposed limiting raw material content to only cullet
during startup and shutdown in recognition of the fact that these
furnaces do not allow control devices to be operated during startup.
For all other glass-melting furnaces, we also required preheating the
empty furnace using only natural gas.
On November 13, 2014, the EPA published a second supplemental
proposal. For major sources, the 2014 supplemental proposal took into
consideration comments received on the 2013 supplemental proposal,
withdrew the previously proposed amendments for affirmative defense,
explained changes to previously proposed limits for major sources in
this source category, proposed work practice standards under CAA
section 112(h) for periods of startup and shutdown, and clarified our
use of the UPL in setting MACT floors.

F. What did we propose for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category in our November 25, 2011 proposal; April
15, 2013 supplemental proposal; and November 13, 2014 supplemental
proposal?

In the November 2011 proposal, we noted our intent to potentially
list wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources and to use data from
the CAA section 114 letter noted above to regulate wool fiberglass area
sources in a future action.
On April 15, 2013, the EPA published a supplemental proposal that
listed gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities that are area sources as a source category
under CAA sections 112(c)(3)and (k)(3). We also proposed first-time PM
and total chromium compounds standards for gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are area
sources under CAA section 112(d)(5).
We proposed GACT standards of 0.00006 pounds of chromium compounds
per ton of glass pulled and 0.33 pounds of PM per ton of glass pulled.
These were the same limits that we proposed for gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces located at major sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category. To maintain consistency with the major source rule, we
proposed the same provisions for startup, shutdown, malfunction,
testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping that we proposed for major
sources.
On November 13, 2014, the EPA published a second supplemental
proposal. For area sources, the 2014 supplemental proposal took into
consideration comments received on the 2013 supplemental proposal,
withdrew the previously proposed provisions for affirmative defense,
explained changes to previously proposed limits for sources in this
source category, and proposed work practice standards under CAA section
112(h) for periods of startup and shutdown.

III. What is included in the final Mineral Wool Production rule?

This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Mineral Wool Production source
category and amends the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP based on those
determinations. This action also finalizes MACT emission limits under
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), work practice standards for periods of
startup and shutdown under CAA section 112(h), and other changes to the
NESHAP discussed in section III.E of this preamble.
In this action, we are finalizing, as previously proposed, the
emission limits for HAP-emitting processes in the Mineral Wool
Production source category, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble.

Table 2--Emission Limits for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Subcategory HAP 2011 Proposal 2013 Proposal 2014 Proposal Final rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cupolas...................... Existing Open-top.... COS............. 3.3................ 6.8................ No change.......... 6.8
New Open-top......... COS............. 0.017.............. 4.3................ 3.2................ 3.2
Existing Closed-top.. COS............. 3.3................ 3.4................ No change.......... 3.4
New Closed-top....... COS............. 0.017.............. 0.025.............. 0.062.............. 0.062
Existing Processing HF.............. 0.014.............. 0.16............... No change.......... 0.16
Slag.
HCl............. 0.0096............. 0.21............... 0.44............... 0.44
New Processing Slag.. HF.............. 0.014.............. 0.16............... 0.015.............. 0.015
HCl............. 0.0096............. 0.21............... 0.012.............. 0.012
Existing Not HF.............. 0.014.............. 0.13............... No change.......... 0.13
Processing Slag.
HCl............. 0.0096............. 0.43............... No change.......... 0.43
New Not Processing HF.............. 0.014.............. 0.13............... 0.018.............. 0.018
Slag.
HCl............. 0.0096............. 0.43............... 0.015.............. 0.015

[[Page 45286]]

Bonded Lines................. Vertical (Existing Formaldehyde.... 0.46............... 2.7................ 2.4................ 2.4
and New) Combined Phenol.......... 0.52............... 0.74............... 0.71............... 0.71
Collection and Methanol........ 0.63............... 1.0................ 0.92............... 0.92
Curing Operations.
Horizontal (Existing Formaldehyde.... 0.054.............. No change.......... 0.63............... 0.63
and New) Combined Phenol.......... 0.15............... No change.......... 0.12............... 0.12
Collection and Methanol........ 0.022.............. No change.......... 0.49............... 0.49
Curing Operations.
Drum (Existing and Formaldehyde.... 0.067.............. 0.18............... 0.17............... 0.17
New) Combined Phenol.......... 0.0023............. 1.3................ 0.85............... 0.85
Collection and Methanol........ 0.00077............ 0.48............... 0.28............... 0.28
Curing Operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
Mineral Wool Production source category?

As presented in the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we are
finalizing our determination that risks from the Mineral Wool
Production source category are acceptable, the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent
an adverse environmental effect. We are, therefore, not requiring
additional controls and are thus readopting the existing standards
under section 112(f)(2).

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

As discussed in the November 2011 proposal (76 FR 72786-72787,
72798), we identified and evaluated the developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that have occurred since the 1999
MACT rules were promulgated. In cases where we identified such
developments, we analyzed the technical feasibility and the estimated
impacts (e.g., costs, emissions reductions, risk reductions) of
applying these developments. We then decided, based on impacts and
feasibility, whether it was necessary to propose amendments to the
regulation to require any of the identified developments.
Based on our analyses of the data, information collected under the
voluntary ICR, our general understanding of both of the industries and
other available information on potential controls for these industries,
we identified potential developments \5\ in practices, processes, and
control technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ For the purpose of this exercise, we considered developments
not identified or considered during development of the 1999 MACT
rules, including any add-on control technology or equipment; any
improvements in technology or equipment that could result in
significant additional emissions reduction; any work practice or
operational procedure; any process change or pollution prevention
alternative that could be broadly applied to the industry; and any
development in equipment or technology that could result in
decreased HAP emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and technologies
that were not considered at the time we developed the 1999 MACT rules,
we reviewed a variety of data sources for the mineral wool industry.
This review included the NESHAP for various industries promulgated
after the 1999 MACT rules, regulatory requirements and technical
analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify any
practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these
efforts that could possibly be applied to emissions sources in the
Mineral Wool Production source category, as well as the costs, non-air
impacts, and energy implications associated with the use of these
technologies.
We additionally consulted the EPA's Reasonably Available Control
Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission
Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse to identify potential technology
advances, and searched this database to determine whether it contained
any practices, processes, or control technologies for the types of
processes covered by the mineral wool production rule.
We also requested information from facilities regarding
developments in practices, processes or control technologies and we
reviewed other information sources, such as state and local permitting
agency databases and industry-supported databases. For more
information, see the ``Technology Review for the Mineral Wool
Production Source Category Memorandum'' in the docket to this rule.
As a result of our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6)
for the Mineral Wool Production source category, we determined that
there are no developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that warrant revisions to this MACT standard. We are
therefore not amending the standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

This action finalizes the removal of formaldehyde as a surrogate
for phenol and methanol, and the removal of CO as a surrogate for COS,
as earlier explained in this preamble and as proposed on November 25,
2011 (76 FR 72770). We also are finalizing the proposed COS, HCl, and
HF emission limits for cupolas and the proposed emission limits for
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for bonded lines developed as a
result of new representative detection limit (RDL) values, new source
test data and our approach for calculating MACT floors based on limited
data sets, as discussed in section III.B of the November 2014
supplemental proposal preamble. These final rule requirements for the
Mineral Wool Production NESHAP are consistent with the provisions
discussed in our various proposals.

D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of startup and shutdown for the Mineral Wool Production source
category?

We are finalizing, as proposed, amendments to the Mineral Wool
Production NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has
established work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown
under CAA section 112(h) because measurement of the emissions is not
practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Emissions
are not at steady state during startup and shutdown (a necessary factor
for accurate emissions testing), and the varying stack conditions, gas
compositions and low emission rates make accurate emission measurements
impracticable. In addition, the startup period for mineral wool cupolas
is usually 2 hours, which is too short a

[[Page 45287]]

time in which to conduct source testing. We are finalizing under CAA
section 112(h), as previously proposed in the November 2014
supplemental proposal, standards requiring affected sources to comply
with work practices that are used by the best performers during periods
of startup and shutdown. The best performers in the mineral wool
industry use one of two possible work practices: either they route any
cupola emissions that occur during startup and shutdown to an operating
baghouse, or, alternatively, operate the cupola during startup and
shutdown with three percent excess oxygen. Regarding the first
alternative, baghouses achieve the same outlet concentrations
regardless of pollutant loading in the emission stream, and
fluctuations in pollutants or exhaust flow rate do not affect the
overall level of emissions at the outlet of this control device.
Regarding the second alternative, operating the cupola with excess
oxygen prevents the formation of pollutants that would otherwise be
routed to existing controls.
In the final rule, we are specifying work practice standards that
require items of equipment that are required or utilized for compliance
with subpart DDD to be operating during startup and shutdown,
designating when startups and shutdowns begin, and specifying
recordkeeping requirements for startup and shutdown periods. We are
also revising Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 (General Provisions
applicability table) to change several references related to
requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We are eliminating or
revising certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to
the eliminated SSM exemption.

E. What other changes have been made to the Mineral Wool Production
NESHAP?

We are finalizing, as proposed, addition of EPA Methods 26A and 320
in appendix A part 63 for measuring the concentrations of HCl and HF.
We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for existing sources to
conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limits for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations no later
than July 30, 2018 and every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing, as
proposed, the requirement for new sources to comply with the emission
limits of the final rule on July 29, 2015, or upon the first cupola
campaign, whichever is later, and to conduct performance tests to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for cupolas and
combined collection/curing operations within 180 days of the applicable
compliance date.
We are also adding an alternative operating limit for cupolas that
provides owners or operators the option of maintaining the percent
excess oxygen in the cupola at or above the level established during
the performance test. In addition, we are finalizing editorial changes
to the performance testing and compliance procedures to specify
formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and COS rather than only the surrogates
formaldehyde and CO. In this action, we are finalizing, as proposed,
definitions for ``closed-top cupola,'' ``open-top cupola,'' ``combined
collection/curing operations'' and ``incinerator.'' We are also adding
a definition for ``slag.'' The 2013 supplemental proposal indicated
that we would add such a definition (78 FR 22386). Slag is the primary
contributing factor to the formation of HF and HCl in the cupola
emissions, and is, for some mineral wool formulas, a necessary
ingredient for the production of mineral wool. We subcategorized
cupolas according to their use of slag as a raw material in the cupola,
and are in this final rule defining slag in 40 CFR 63.1196 to mean the
by-product materials separated from metals during smelting and refining
of raw ore.
We are also making minor corrections to the citations in Table 1
(part 63 General Provision applicability table) to reflect both the
final amendments in this action, and the revisions that have been made
to the General Provisions since 1999.

F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the new MACT
standards for the Mineral Wool Production source category?

The new MACT standards for the Mineral Wool Production source
category being promulgated in this action are effective on July 29,
2015. The compliance date for existing cupolas and combined collection/
curing operations is July 30, 2018. New sources must comply with the
all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the
standard, July 29, 2015, or upon initial startup, whichever is later.
Mineral wool producers are predominantly small businesses. Prior to
the November 25, 2011, proposal, we found there was potentially a
significant impact to a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE),
and convened a small business advocacy review (SBAR) panel. In that
process, the EPA conducted meetings with mineral wool companies and the
Small Business Office of Advocacy in order to determine ways in which
the impact and burden to small entities could be reduced while
continuing to meet the requirements of the CAA. Stakeholders requested
up to 3 years to comply with the standards once they were promulgated,
in order to be able to install controls, find sources of low-sulfur
coke and low-chloride slag, and to conduct performance testing. In
subsequent proposals, we subcategorized cupolas according to design and
according to raw material use, and can certify that the final rule will
not have a SISNOSE. However, we believe that it is still appropriate to
retain the proposed compliance date of 3 years after promulgation
because the added compliance emissions testing and any process changes
sources needed to comply could become significant if the compliance
time were shortened to less than the 3 years allowed for standards
developed under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).

G. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?

As stated in the proposed preamble to the November 2011 proposal,
the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data
submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring
owners and operators of affected facilities to submit electronic copies
of certain required performance test reports.
As mentioned in the preamble of the November 2011 proposal, data
will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer
using EPA-provided software. As discussed in the November 2011
proposal, the EPA-provided software is an electronic performance test
report tool called the ERT. The ERT will generate an electronic report
package which will be submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can
be found at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/, and CEDRI can
be accessed through the CDX Web site at https://www.epa.gov/cdx.
The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site. The EPA
believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the

[[Page 45288]]

performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking
benefits industry by cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the
performance test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are
no longer required to be kept in hard copy.
As mentioned in the preamble of the November 2011 proposal, state,
local, and tribal agencies will benefit from more streamlined and
accurate review of performance test data that will be available on the
EPA WebFIRE database. The public will also benefit. Having these data
publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more
thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using
direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided
software, see the discussion in the preamble of the November 2011
proposal.
In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development, and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data will save industry; state, local, and tribal agencies; and
the EPA significant time, money, and effort, while improving the
quality of emission inventories, air quality regulations and enhancing
the public's access to this important information.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Mineral Wool Production source category?

For each topic, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the subject, the EPA's
rationale for the final decisions and amendments and a summary of key
comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this
preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the
comment summary and response document available in the dockets for each
source category.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Mineral
Wool Production source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk
assessment on the Mineral Wool Production source category and presented
the results of this assessment, along with our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the
November 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 72798). Based on the inhalation risk
assessment, we estimated that the MIR could be up to 4-in-1 million due
to actual emissions and up to 10-in-1 million due to MACT-allowable
emissions, mainly due to formaldehyde stack emissions. We estimated
that the incidence of cancer based on actual emissions is 0.0004 excess
cancer cases per year or one case every 2,500 years, and that about
1,700 people face a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million due to HAP
emissions from the mineral wool production source category.
That risk assessment indicated that the maximum modeled chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value for the Mineral Wool Production source category
could be up to 0.04 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those
impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic non-cancer
impacts.
Our screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts indicated the
potential for only one pollutant, formaldehyde, to exceed an HQ value
of 1 at only one facility in the Mineral Wool Production source
category, with a potential maximum HQ up to 8. A refined emissions
multiplier of 3 was used to estimate the peak hourly emission rates
from the average rates.
Consequently, in November 2011 we proposed that risks from this
source category were acceptable. In addition, we did not identify cost-
effective options that would further reduce risk under our ample margin
of safety analysis. Therefore, we proposed that the current standards
for the Mineral Wool Production source category provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health. We also determined that HAP
emissions from this source category were not expected to result in
adverse environmental effects.
In the April 2013 supplemental proposal, we revised the risk
assessment to reflect new emissions data submitted by the industry
following the 2011 proposal, the development of subcategories for HCl
and HF emissions from slag- and nonslag-processing cupolas, and
subcategories for COS emissions from closed- and open-top cupolas. As
noted in the 2013 supplemental proposal, the risks estimated in our
revised assessment under CAA section 112(f)(2) from actual emissions
increased slightly (based on the new data) compared to the risk
assessment conducted for the 2011 proposal. The actual MIR for cancer
increased from 4-in-1 million to 10-in-1 million. The maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value for the source category increased from 0.04 to
0.12 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts,
indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. The
acute noncancer HQ, based on the REL for formaldehyde, increased from 8
to 20. The acute noncancer HQ, based on the AEGL-1 for formaldehyde,
increased from 0.4 to 1.1. While the risk increased slightly based on
the new source test data, we noted that that our findings regarding
risk acceptability and ample margin of safety remained unchanged.
In our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we also revised the
draft risk assessment under CAA section 112(f)(2) based on new
emissions data collected by the industry and updates to the model and
model libraries. The new test data that were received did not change
our estimate of risk from actual emissions when compared to the risk
assessment conducted for the 2013 supplemental proposal. The risk from
mineral wool production continued to be driven by formaldehyde and to
be well within a level we consider to be acceptable. The MIR for cancer
for actual baseline emissions remained 10-in-1 million, with the acute
noncancer HQ remaining at 20 for the REL and at 1 for the AEGL-1. The
maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions
remained at 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those
impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer
impacts.
The MIR for cancer from mineral wool production due to allowable
emissions (under the original MACT standard) was estimated to be 30-in-
1 million (formaldehyde). Facilities actually emit formaldehyde at
levels lower than allowed under the 1999 MACT standard, and the limits
in the final rule codify formaldehyde (and the other HAP) limits at the
actual emissions levels. As a result, the potential MIR for cancer due
to allowable emissions after implementation of the standard is
estimated to be 10-in-1 million. Therefore, the MIR based on emissions
at the level of this standard (i.e., what sources are permitted to
emit) decreased by a factor of 3 from MACT-allowable levels. Additional
information on the risk assessment can be found in the document titled,
``Residual Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing in Support of the June 2015 Final Rule''
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041).

[[Page 45289]]

2. How did the risk review change for the Mineral Wool Production
source category?
We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment since the
November 2014 supplemental proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review for the Mineral
Wool Production source category, and what are our responses?
The comments received on the proposed risk review were generally
supportive of our determination of risk acceptability and ample margin
of safety analysis and requirement for additional control. A summary of
the comments received regarding the risk acceptability and ample margin
of safety analysis and our responses can be found in the comment
summary and response document available in the docket for this action
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041). None of the public comments resulted in changes
to the conclusions of our risk analysis.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review for the Mineral Wool Production source category?
As explained in the various proposals and in section IV.A.1 of this
preamble, our assessment of residual risk from the Mineral Wool
Production source category shows that risks from the source category
are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health, and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
We are, therefore, not requiring additional controls and are thus
readopting the existing standards under section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the Mineral Wool Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
Mineral Wool Production source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology review
that focused on identifying and evaluating developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies for sources of HAP in the Mineral
Wool Production source category. As discussed in the 2011 proposal (76
FR 72798), existing cupolas are controlled using baghouses, and bonded
lines are controlled using thermal oxidizers. We did not identify any
relevant cost-effective developments in technologies, practices, or
processes since promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP that would further
reduce HAP emissions. Therefore, we did not propose any changes to the
1999 NESHAP as a result of our technology review under CAA section
112(d)(6) for the Mineral Wool Production source category. Additional
information regarding the technology review for the Mineral Wool
Production source category can be found in the document titled,
``Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Final Mineral Wool
NESHAP'' available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
1041).
2. How did the technology review change for the Mineral Wool Production
source category?
We have not changed any aspect of the technology review for this
source category since the November 2014 supplemental proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
The comments received on our technology review and findings were
generally supportive. A summary of the comments received regarding the
technology review and our responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1041). We note that none of the public comments and
information received in response to the November 2014 supplemental
proposal provided data relevant to the technology review, and we made
no changes to the technology review based on the comments.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
As explained in the various proposals and in section IV.B.1 of this
preamble, we did not identify any cost-effective developments in
practices, processes and controls used to reduce emissions from the
mineral wool production industry. Therefore, consistent with our
proposals, we are not making any changes to the standards as a result
of the CAA section 112(d)(6) review.

C. MACT Standards for Pollutants Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate
and Previously Unregulated Pollutants

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for
pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate and for previously
unregulated pollutants?
In our November 2011 proposal, we proposed revisions to the 1999
NESHAP under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). We proposed to remove
unreasonable surrogates, to set limits for each HAP emitted that was
previously regulated under a surrogate, and to set limits for
previously unregulated HAP. These revisions included removing CO as a
surrogate for COS and removing formaldehyde as a surrogate for methanol
and phenol; proposing emission limits for COS from cupolas,
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from combined collection and curing
operations; and proposing emissions limits for previously unregulated
pollutants (i.e., HCl and HF emitted from cupolas).
In our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we made changes to the
previously proposed emission limits for phenol, formaldehyde, and
methanol based on new emissions test data. We further proposed
subcategories for COS emissions from cupolas based on cupola design.
Finally, we proposed subcategories for HF and HCl from cupolas based on
whether they processed slag.
In the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we revised emission
limits under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for cupolas and bonded
lines as a result of new information regarding detection limits (and
consistent with our procedures for ensuring that emission limits are
not set below the minimum level that can be accurately measured), new
source test data and our approach for calculating MACT floors based on
limited data sets.
2. How did we change our proposed emission limits for pollutants that
were previously regulated under a surrogate or that were previously
unregulated?
Our final emission limits for pollutants previously regulated under
a surrogate, and previously unregulated pollutants did not change since
our most recent proposal in November 2014.
3. What key comments did we receive on pollutants previously regulated
under a surrogate and on previously unregulated pollutants?
We received comments both supporting and objecting to our use of
the UPL in calculating MACT floors and the way we treat limited
datasets for these pollutants. The commenters did not provide new
information or a basis for the EPA to change the proposed emission
limits, and did not show that facilities cannot comply with the MACT
standards. The comments related to the proposed emission limits for
pollutants that were previously regulated under a surrogate and that
were previously unregulated are in the comment summary and the response
document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
1041).

[[Page 45290]]

4. What is the rationale for our final approach for pollutants
previously regulated under a surrogate and for previously unregulated
pollutants?
As we discussed in the preamble for the November 2014 supplemental
proposal and provided in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket, we are finalizing, as proposed, the emission
limits for pollutants previously regulated under a surrogate and for
previously unregulated pollutants. Three surrogate relationships were
in place in the Mineral Wool MACT standard, and we reviewed each of
these to determine whether they were reasonable surrogates. We found
that the relationship of formaldehyde, methanol and phenol emissions
tend to be specific to the binder formulation of an individual product.
We found that the surrogacy of CO for COS was not reasonable because
the two pollutants are not invariably present and the relationships
tend to be specific to the site. We retained the surrogacy of PM for
non-mercury HAP metals because control of PM achieves the same level of
control for non-mercury HAP metals, regardless of the concentration of
those metals in the PM or whether the concentration of those metals
varies in the PM.
We requested and obtained HAP-specific emissions testing for all
HAP emitted by all processes in the mineral wool industry. Emissions of
PM, HF, HCl, and COS were measured from at least one cupola in
operation at each facility, and emissions of formaldehyde, methanol,
and phenol were measured at the three bonded lines that were in
operation in 2010. As a result of the information we gathered, we are
finalizing limits for all measured HAP and for the collection process,
which emits HAP but was not regulated under the 1999 MACT standard. We
are not changing the PM emission limit as a result of the information
we gathered.
HF and HCl were not previously regulated, and the emissions of
these pollutants depend upon whether slag is used in the cupola. Slag
is a raw material in the mineral wool industry that is a waste product
of electric arc furnaces at steel plants. Depending on the end-use of
the mineral wool product, slag is a needed ingredient in some mineral
wool formulations and an undesirable ingredient in others. The use of
slag as a raw material in the mineral wool cupola causes ``shot''
(small pellets of iron) to form in the mineral wool product. The
quality of some mineral wool products (such as that used for hydroponic
gardening) is affected by the presence of shot, and, as a result,
facilities making such products do not use slag in their raw materials.
Consequently, their emissions of HF and HCl are lower. Two
subcategories of cupolas reflect whether slag is processed in the
cupola.
Emissions of COS are affected by whether a cupola is designed as a
closed cupola (which results in lower COS emissions) or an open cupola
(which results in higher COS emissions). Two subcategories of cupolas
reflect this design criteria.
Data collected from the mineral wool industry showed three bonded
lines were in operation at the time of data collection in 2010. The
bonded lines include both collection (the process in which the fibers
are formed and sprayed with a phenol/formaldehyde binding agent); and
curing, the thermosetting process that cures the binder. Collection was
not regulated under the 1999 MACT standard, the emissions from both the
curing and collection processes are vented to the same line, and the
emissions from these processes can be measured together. These combined
collection and curing operations emit phenol, formaldehyde, and
methanol as a result of the phenolic resin used to produce the bonded
product. We are finalizing limits for combined collection and curing
operations according to three different designs: Vertical, horizontal,
and drum. The final emission limits for the mineral wool industry are
shown above in Table 2 of section III of this preamble.

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions for the Mineral Wool
Production Source Category

1. What SSM provisions did we propose for the Mineral Wool Production
source category?
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
We have therefore eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established work
practice standards for those periods. We also revised Table 1 of the
General Provisions applicability table in several respects as is
explained in more detail below. For example, we have eliminated the
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the source
develop an SSM plan. We also eliminated and revised certain
recordkeeping and reporting provisions that are related to the SSM
exemption as described in detail in the proposed rule and summarized
again in section IV.D of this preamble, in the rule at 40 CFR 63.1389,
and in the General Provisions Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Mineral Wool Production
source category?
We have not changed any aspect of the proposed SSM provisions since
the November 2014 supplemental proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
We received comments regarding the proposed revisions to remove the
SSM exemptions for the Mineral Wool Production source category.
Comments from industry representatives expressed support for the
proposed work practice standards. Another commenter contended that we
should have established numerical emission limits. As we noted in the
November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68016), the EPA may
promulgate a work practice rather than an emissions standard when
measurement of the emissions is technically and economically
practicable. In the case of this source category, emissions are not at
steady state during startup and shutdown (a necessary factor for
accurate emissions testing), and the varying stack conditions, gas
compositions, and flow rates make accurate emission measurements
impracticable. In addition, startup period for mineral wool cupolas,
typically 2 hours, is too short a time to conduct source testing.
The commenters did not provide new information or a basis for the
EPA to change the proposed provisions and did not show that facilities
cannot comply with the work practice standards during periods of
startup and shutdown. The comments related to the proposed revisions to
remove the SSM exemptions and our specific responses to those comments
can be found in the comment summary and response document available in
the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041).

[[Page 45291]]

4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the SSM
provisions?
For the reasons provided above, in the preamble for the proposed
rule and provided in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket, we have removed the SSM exemption from the
Mineral Wool Production NESHAP; eliminated or revised certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the eliminated SSM
exemption; and removed or modified inappropriate, unnecessary, or
redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. For periods of
startup and shutdown, we are finalizing the work practices of the best
performers, as proposed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal.
Owners/operators may choose to comply using two potential options
during startup and shutdown. One, cupola emissions may be controlled
using the control devices that meet the limits of the standard during
normal operation, or two, the cupola may be operated during startup and
shutdown with 3 percent or more excess oxygen. Additionally, sources
must maintain records of the startup and shutdown option they practice,
and must monitor and keep records of the parameters of the operating
control device(s) or the oxygen level of the cupola during these
periods. The controls of startup and shutdown emissions practiced by
the best performers in the source category are sufficient so that no
additional standards are needed to address emissions during startup or
shutdown periods.

E. Other Changes Made to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP

1. What other changes did we propose for the Mineral Wool Production
NESHAP?
a. Electronic Reporting
As stated in the preamble to the November 2011 proposed rule, the
EPA proposed electronic reporting requirements. See section III.G of
this preamble for more information on what we proposed (and what we are
finalizing) for electronic reporting.
b. Test Methods and Testing Frequency
We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for new sources to
conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limits for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations within 180
days of the applicable compliance date and every 5 years thereafter. We
are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for existing sources to
conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limits for cupolas and combined collection/curing operations by July
30, 2018 and every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing, as proposed,
the addition of EPA Methods 26A and 320 in appendix A of part 63 for
measuring the concentrations of HCl and HF; and EPA Method 318 for
measuring the concentrations of COS, formaldehyde, methanol, and
phenol. In addition, we are finalizing editorial changes to the
performance testing and compliance procedures to replace references in
the 1999 NESHAP to the surrogates CO and formaldehyde with references
to specific HAP (formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for the surrogate
formaldehyde, and COS for the surrogate CO).
2. How did the provisions regarding these other changes to the Mineral
Wool Production NESHAP change since proposal?
We have not made any changes to the proposed provisions for
electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; definitions or
revisions to the General Provision applicability table.
3. What key comments did we receive on the other changes to the Mineral
Wool Production NESHAP, and what are our responses?
We received no key comments regarding electronic reporting, testing
methods and frequency, definitions, and revisions to the General
Provisions applicability table. A summary of the comments we did
receive and our responses can be found in the comment summary and
response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1041).
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions regarding these other
changes to the Mineral Wool Production NESHAP?
There was no information in the public comments that affected the
rationale for these provisions that was presented in the various
proposals. Therefore, we are finalizing the proposed provisions
regarding electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency;
definitions and revisions to the General Provision applicability table.

V. What is included in the Final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule for
major sources?

This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category and amends the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP
based on those determinations. This action also finalizes other changes
to the NESHAP (e.g., compliance dates) as discussed in section V.F of
this preamble. In addition, we are finalizing the emission limits for
major sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category as
shown in Table 3 of this preamble.

Table 3--Emission Limits for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major Sources
[lb pollutant/ton glass pulled]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process HAP Emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Flame Attenuation Lines.. Formaldehyde........ 5.6
Phenol.............. 1.4
Methanol............ 0.50
New Flame Attenuation Lines....... Formaldehyde........ 2.6
Phenol.............. 0.44
Methanol............ 0.35
Existing and New Furnaces......... PM.................. 0.33
Existing and New Gas-Fired Chromium compounds.. 0.00025
Furnaces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 45292]]

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing emission
limits for chromium emissions from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces of
0.00025 pounds of total chromium per ton of glass pulled to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. We are also requiring
that facilities establish the materials mix, including the percentages
of raw materials and cullet, used in gas-fired glass-melting furnaces
during the performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with
the chromium emission limit. We are requiring that the percentage of
cullet in the material mix be continually maintained at or below the
level established during the most recent performance test showing
compliance with the standard.
We note that although we have adopted these same standards, under
both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these standards rest on
independent statutory authorities and independent rationales.
Consequently, these standards remain independent and legally severable.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?

We determined that there are developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards
for this source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 112(d)(6), we are revising the existing MACT standards to
include an emission limit for glass-melting furnaces of 0.33 pounds of
PM per ton of glass pulled as we proposed in April 2013. In this
action, we are also revising the proposed chromium emission limit for
gas-fired glass-melting furnaces from 0.00006 to 0.00025 pounds of
total chromium per ton of glass pulled, based on our re-assessment of
emissions data for newly-rebuilt gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.
We note that although we have adopted the total chromium compounds
standards under both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these
standards rest on independent statutory authorities and independent
rationales. Consequently, these standards remain independent and
legally severable.

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources)
source category?

This action finalizes the HAP-specific limits proposed in November
2014 that we developed under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) as a result
of removing the use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for methanol and
phenol on FA lines. We are also eliminating the subcategories for FA
lines because the technical bases for distinguishing the subcategories
when the original rule was developed no longer exist and we are
promulgating emission limits at the MACT floor level for formaldehyde,
methanol, and phenol.
As explained in section V.H of this preamble, we are not, at this
time, finalizing limits under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS
lines.

D. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(h)
for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources) source category?

This action finalizes the work practice standards for HCl and HF
emissions from glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities developed under CAA section 112(h) as proposed in November
2014 (79 FR 68023). These amendments to the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP are consistent with the amendments discussed in
the November 2014 supplemental proposal.

E. What are the final rule amendments for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing (major sources) source category addressing emissions
during periods of startup and shutdown?

We are finalizing, as proposed, changes to the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has
established work practice standards in this rule that apply during
startup and shutdown periods. We are revising Table 1 to subpart NNN of
part 63 (General Provisions applicability table) to change several
references related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We
also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. We are specifying
that items of equipment that are required or utilized for compliance
with 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN must be operated during startup and
shutdown. We are finalizing the specifications designating when startup
and shutdown begins and recordkeeping requirements for demonstrating
compliance during startup and shutdown periods.
We determined that facilities in this source category can meet the
applicable work practice standards by following the startup and
shutdown procedures that we identified as representative of the
procedures employed by the best performing units during periods of
startup and shutdown.
Gas-fired furnaces use an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) to
control emissions during normal operations. The best performing gas-
fired furnaces route emissions during startup and shutdown to the
control device. We note that operators of gas-fired furnaces that
formerly turned off the controls during startup or shutdown would no
longer be allowed to do so.
Electric furnaces use baghouses to control emissions during normal
operations. Until the crust is formed on top of the molten glass (and
startup ends) the temperature of the gases that would be routed to the
baghouse would cause the bags to catch fire. The best performing
electric furnaces use only cullet (which emits PM at extremely low
levels when melted) and clean fuels (natural gas, which does not emit
PM when combusted) during startup and shutdown in order to minimize PM
emissions during these periods.

F. What other changes have been made to the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP (major sources)?

We are finalizing, as proposed, the addition of EPA Method 29 for
measuring the concentrations of chromium. We are finalizing the
requirement, as proposed, to maintain the filter temperature at 248
25 [deg]F when using Method 5 to measure PM emissions from
furnaces. We are also amending the NESHAP to allow owners or operators
to measure PM emissions from furnaces using either EPA Method 5 or
Method 29.
We are finalizing, as proposed, the addition of EPA Method 318 as
an alternative test method for measuring the concentration of phenol
and methanol and EPA Method 308 as an alternative test method for
measuring the concentration of methanol. We are finalizing, as proposed
in the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22402), the replacement of a
minimum sampling time of 1 hour with the specification to collect 10
spectra when using EPA Method 318. When using Method 316 to measure
formaldehyde, we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement to
collect a minimum sampling volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters
(dscm); however, we are not finalizing the

[[Page 45293]]

proposed minimum sampling run time of 2 hours. We are also finalizing
editorial changes to the performance testing and compliance procedures
to specify formaldehyde, methanol, phenol (rather than the surrogate,
formaldehyde), chromium, HCl, and HF. Additionally, for existing
sources we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement to conduct
performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission
limit for furnaces no later than July 31, 2017 and annually thereafter;
to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit for furnaces no
later than July 31, 2017 and every 5 years thereafter; and to
demonstrate compliance with the phenol, formaldehyde and methanol
emission limits for FA lines no later than July 31, 2017 and every 5
years thereafter.
We are finalizing the requirement for new sources to comply with
the emission limits on July 29, 2015, or upon the initial startup,
whichever is later, and to conduct performance tests to demonstrate
compliance with the emission limits for furnaces and FA lines no later
than 180 days after the applicable compliance date. Following the
initial test to demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission
limit, owners or operators must test for chromium emissions annually.
For all other pollutants, owners or operators must conduct performance
tests every 5 years after the initial test to demonstrate compliance
with the emissions limits. Table 4 of this preamble summarizes the
compliance test schedule for major and area sources.

Table 4--Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Compliance Test Schedule for Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial test dates
Process Pollutant(s) ---------------------------------------- Subsequent testing
Existing sources New sources frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FA Line......................... Phenol 2 years after Within 180 days Every 5 years
Formaldehyde publication of after publication thereafter.
Methanol. the final rule in the Federal
amendments in the Register, or 180
Federal Register. days after
initial startup,
whichever is
later.
All Furnace Types............... PM
Gas-fired Furnace............... Chromium compounds Annually
thereafter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are finalizing, as proposed, the clarification that 40 CFR part
63, subpart NNN applies to FA lines, regardless of what products are
manufactured on the FA line.
In this action, we are finalizing, as proposed, definitions for
``gas-fired glass-melting furnace'' and ``incinerator.'' We are also
revising the definition of ``new source'' and the trigger date for the
requirement to submit notifications of intent to construct/reconstruct
an affected source to reflect the date of the initial RTR proposal
(November 25, 2011).
We are finalizing, as proposed, the monitoring requirement for
furnaces and FA lines to provide flexibility in establishing an
appropriate monitoring parameter.
We are also making minor corrections to the citations in Table 1
(part 63 General Provision applicability table) to reflect the final
amendments in this action, and the revisions that have been made to the
General Provisions since 1999.

G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

The revisions to the MACT standards for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category being promulgated in this action are
effective on July 29, 2015. The compliance date for existing sources is
July 31, 2017. New sources must comply with the all of the standards
immediately upon the effective date of the standard, July 29, 2015, or
upon initial startup, whichever is later.
The effective and compliance dates finalized in this action are
consistent with the dates we presented in the 2014 supplemental
proposal.

H. What is the status of the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT
standard amendments under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS
Manufacturing Lines?

We are not finalizing the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol
standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for RS manufacturing
lines in this final action. On November 25, 2011 (76 FR 72791), we
proposed to discontinue use of formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol
and methanol and we proposed formaldehyde, methanol and phenol emission
limits for RS and FA lines. On April 15, 2013 (72 FR 22387), we
proposed revised emission limits for RS lines based on clarification of
test data received from the industry during the comment period. We
explained that since the 1999 promulgation of the MACT standards, many
companies had discontinued the use of formaldehyde. However, they did
not distinguish between the bonded lines that still used formaldehyde
and those that did not. We had, therefore, included some data for HAP-
free lines along with the data for lines still using formaldehyde when
we developed the emission limits proposed in the November 2011 proposal
(78 FR 22387). In the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR
68203), we also proposed revised formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol
emission limits for new RS lines as a result of our updated approach
for evaluating limited datasets (79 FR 68023-24).
The EPA is not finalizing these proposed CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3) standards in this action because we believe the data that we relied
on in proposing these standards are not sufficiently related to current
operations or emissions from RS bonded lines. The emissions and process
data available to EPA were collected beginning in 2003. As previously
explained, since that time, sources have phased out the use of a
phenol/formaldehyde binder from approximately 95 percent of the lines
on which it was previously used. We have also found out that sources
often can no longer either identify the products that were tested or on
the lines on which those products had been manufactured. Moreover, when
sources can identify the products that were tested, those products are
now produced using a HAP-free binder, and the product lines that now
operate using a phenol/formaldehyde binder do not bear similarity in
size, end use, production rate or loss on ignition (LOI) percent to the
tested product line. As a result, the data no longer represent current
industry conditions, most notably the significant reduction in the use
of phenol/formaldehyde binders in wool fiberglass manufacturing.
Consequently, we have issued a CAA section 114 ICR to wool fiberglass
facilities to obtain updated formaldehyde, methanol, and

[[Page 45294]]

phenol emissions and process data for RS manufacturing lines.

I. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP?

The requirements for electronic reporting of performance test data
for wool fiberglass manufacturing major sources are the same as the
requirements for the mineral wool production source category. See
section III.G of this preamble for a description of the requirements.

VI. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?

For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source
Category (Major Sources)

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted a residual risk
assessment and presented the results of this assessment, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the November 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 72801). Based on the
inhalation risk assessment, we estimated that the MIR could be as high
as 40-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up to 60-in-1 million
due to MACT-allowable emissions, mainly due to formaldehyde and
hexavalent chromium emissions. We stated that the risk levels due to
actual and MACT-allowable emissions were acceptable; however, we
proposed an emission limit for total chromium (0.00006 pounds per ton
of glass pulled) in order to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health.
In the April 2013 supplemental proposal, we revised the draft risk
assessment to reflect new emissions data for hexavalent chromium that
we collected from all glass-melting furnaces available for testing in
response to our October 28, 2011, CAA section 114 ICR. These revisions
reduced our estimate of risk from actual emissions when compared to the
risk assessment conducted for the November 2011 proposal. The risk from
wool fiberglass manufacturing was driven by formaldehyde and hexavalent
chromium. The MIR for actual baseline emissions decreased from 40-in-1-
million to 20-in-1 million (formaldehyde), with the acute noncancer HQ
remaining at 30 for the REL and at 2 for the AEGL-1 (formaldehyde). The
maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions
remained at 0.2 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those
impacts, indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer
impacts.
In the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we presented the
revised draft risk assessment to reflect updates to the model and model
libraries and also retained the proposed emission limits for chromium
compounds for existing and new gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. These
revisions did not significantly change our estimate of risk from actual
emissions when compared to the risk assessment conducted for the April
2013 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68020). The risk from wool fiberglass
manufacturing was driven by formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium and
continued to be well within a level we consider to be acceptable. The
MIR for actual baseline emissions remained 20-in-1 million
(formaldehyde), with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the REL
and decreased from 2 to 1 for the AEGL-1 (formaldehyde). The maximum
chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions decreased from
0.2 to 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts,
indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts.
Overall, we considered the risk to be acceptable.
Based on information provided by the industry, 95 percent of the RS
lines no longer use phenol-formaldehyde binders and are no longer major
sources. However, this phase out is not reflected in the facility file
data on which the risk assessment was based. Throughout the wool
fiberglass manufacturing industry, these binders continued to be phased
out as this rule was developed. The risk analysis we conducted for the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category overstates the risk
because of the continuing phase out. Therefore, we believe the risks
from wool fiberglass manufacturing from actual emissions are lower than
the risks we estimated.
2. How did the risk review change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category (major sources)?
The baseline risk assessment has not changed since the November
2014 supplemental proposal. The MIR based on actual emissions remains
at 20-in-1 million with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the
REL and 1 for the AEGL-1 (formaldehyde). The maximum chronic non-cancer
TOSHI value based on actual emissions is 0.1 with emissions of
formaldehyde dominating those impacts, indicating no significant
potential for chronic noncancer impacts.
The MIR based on MACT-allowable emissions could be as high as 60-
in-1 million, which we believe to be a conservative estimate based on
four factors: (1) At one time, there were at least 60 RS lines in the
industry, (2) industry has stated that 95 percent of RS lines no longer
use formaldehyde as a binder, (3) Industry has stated that there are
only 5 RS lines left that use a phenol/formaldehyde binder, and (4)
Title V permit records indicate that 20 out of a total of 30 facilities
have completely phased out their use of formaldehyde as a raw material
throughout the facility.
We conducted a new assessment of the risks remaining after
implementation of these final rule revisions. The revised assessment of
post-control risks reflects the adjustment of the chromium compounds
emission limit and the EPA's deferral of setting standards for
formaldehyde, methanol and phenol from RS lines. Specifically, the risk
assessment takes into account the change in the chromium compounds
emission limit for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces from 0.00006 pounds
of chromium per ton of glass pulled to 0.00025 pounds of chromium per
ton of glass pulled, the emission limits for formaldehyde at new and
existing FA lines (2.6 pounds per ton and 5.6 pounds per ton,
respectively) and the current emission estimates for formaldehyde,
methanol and phenol from RS lines. The MIR for cancer after
implementation of the RTR could be up to 60-in-1 million (equal to the
current risk estimates for allowables) but, as discussed above, this is
a conservative, upper-end estimate. Consequently, we believe risks are
significantly lower than estimated and the standards provide an ample
margin of safety.
Emissions of chromium compounds are a secondary risk driver to
formaldehyde, and the risk is 7-in-1 million based on current actual
emissions. It is important to note that,

[[Page 45295]]

even though risks are acceptable, the health risks from hexavalent
chromium emissions from wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities could
be much higher in the future without a chromium compounds emission
limit. To capture this scenario, we conducted an auxiliary risk
analysis in which we assumed all wool fiberglass furnaces emitted
hexavalent chromium at the same rate as the reasonable highest-emitting
furnace. The results of the auxiliary risk analysis showed that, in the
absence of a chromium emission limit and with furnaces emitting at the
assumed emission rate, risk at four facilities is expected to increase
over time to greater than 100-in-1 million, due to increasing chromium
emissions occurring with furnace age. Therefore, we determined that the
chromium emission limit in the final rule, which will limit the MIR
cancer risk from hexavalent chromium emissions from this category to no
higher than 3-in-1 million, is necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety.
Regarding chromium compounds, as discussed above, we received
comments on the proposed chromium compounds limit that indicated that a
newly-rebuilt furnace, which we believe is the likely compliance
technology, may not be able to demonstrate compliance with the proposed
emission limit. The comment was based on one specific example from the
2012 test data that showed a 1-year old gas-fired glass-melting furnace
emitting approximately 0.0002 pounds chromium per ton of glass. We re-
evaluated the proposed chromium compounds limit in light of information
on this technology, and based on the data available, we have revised
the chromium compounds limit and are now finalizing an emissions limit
of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled for gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces. We conducted an assessment of the risk attributable to all
HAP for each facility and determined that increasing the chromium
compound emission limit from 0.00006 to 0.00025 pounds total chromium
per ton of glass pulled has a minimal effect on the post-RTR risks
because these risks are largely driven by formaldehyde emissions.
Specifically, at the chromium compounds emission limit of 0.00025
pounds total chromium per ton of glass pulled, the MIR due to only
chromium emissions for the source category is 3-in-1 million.
The results of the risk assessment are presented in more detail in
the final residual risk memorandum titled ``Residual Risk Assessment
for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Source Categories in Support of the June 2015 Final Rule,'' which can
be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review for Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing (major sources), and what are our responses?
We received comments in support of and against our proposed
determination of risk acceptability, ample margin of safety analysis,
and requirement for additional control. A summary of these comments and
our responses can be found in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042). The
following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the risk
assessment for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and
our responses to these comments. Additional comments on the risk
assessment and our responses can be found in the comment summary and
response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1042).
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should find the acute
health risk from wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities to be
unacceptable. The commenter noted that the EPA's assessment in the
November 2011 proposal found an acute risk of 30 for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and argued that the EPA should
find the health risk to be unacceptable under CAA section 112(f)(2)
based on this acute risk.
The commenter stated that the EPA has a presumption that an HQ
below 1 is safe, that the EPA has stated that a HQ less than or equal
to 1 indicates that adverse noncancer effects are not likely to occur,
and that exposure below that threshold level is safe. The commenter
added that the EPA did not adequately explain why the formaldehyde
risks were found to be acceptable although they are 30 times higher
than the threshold.
The commenter asserted that, by applying the outdated integrated
risk information system (IRIS) dose-response values in determining
formaldehyde inhalation exposure risk, the EPA is not basing the
proposed rule on the best available science. The commenter urged the
EPA to revise the proposed rule to accurately convey the best available
science and a weight-of-evidence approach in compliance with the
Information Quality Act (IQA) Guidelines and Executive Order 13563. In
particular, the commenter argued that the EPA should reject the 1991
IRIS dose-response value and incorporate the Chemical Industry
Institute of Toxicology (CIIT, 1999) cancer dose-response value for
formaldehyde.
Response: As discussed in sections V.A and VI.A of this preamble,
we revised the risk assessment for wool fiberglass facilities for the
November 2014 supplemental proposal. For wool fiberglass facilities,
the MIR for actual baseline emissions remained 20-in-1 million
(formaldehyde), with the acute noncancer HQ remaining at 30 for the REL
and decreased from 2 to 1 for the AEGL-1 (formaldehyde). The maximum
chronic non-cancer TOSHI value based on actual emissions decreased from
0.2 to 0.1 with emissions of formaldehyde dominating those impacts,
indicating no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. We
found that the risks were acceptable.
We note that the acute risks are based on an REL value, which is
defined as ``the concentration level at or below which no adverse
health effects are anticipated for specified exposure duration.''
Moreover, we note that the acute risk assessment is a worst-case
assessment. For example, the acute assessment assumes worst-case
meteorology, peak emissions and an individual being located at the site
of maximum concentration for an hour. Taken together, the EPA does not
believe that in all RTR reviews, HQ values must be less than or equal
to 1. Rather, the EPA finds that acute risks must be judged on a case-
by-case basis in the context of all the available health evidence and
risk analyses.
To better characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key
recommendation from the Science Advisory Board's (SAB) peer review of
the EPA's RTR risk assessment methodologies,\6\ we generally examine a
wider range of available acute health metrics (e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than
we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the
SAB's acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and
inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in chronic
reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays \7\ for
HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values (i.e.,
occupational and

[[Page 45296]]

international values) to provide a more complete risk characterization.
The EPA uses AEGL and Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG)
values (when available) in conjunction with REL values (again, when
available) to characterize potential acute health risks. However, it is
often the case that HAP do not have all of these acute reference
benchmark values. In these instances, the EPA describes the potential
acute health risk in relation to the acute health values that are
available. Importantly, when interpreting the results, we are careful
to identify the benchmark being used and the health implications
associated with any specific benchmark being exceeded. By definition,
the acute California reference exposure level (CA-REL) represents a
health-protective level of exposure, with no risk anticipated below
those levels, even for repeated exposures; however, the health risk
from higher-level exposures is unknown. Therefore, when a CA-REL is
exceeded and an AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at
which mild effects are anticipated in the general public for a single
exposure), we have used them as a second comparative measure.
Historically, comparisons of the estimated maximum off-site 1-hour
exposure levels have not been typically made to occupational levels for
the purpose of characterizing public health risks in RTR assessments.
This is because occupational ceiling values are not generally
considered protective for the general public since they are designed to
protect the worker population (presumed healthy adults) for short
duration (i.e., less than 15 minute) increases in exposure. As a
result, for most chemicals, the 15-minute occupational ceiling values
are set at levels higher than a 1-hour AEGL-1, making comparisons to
them irrelevant unless the AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 levels are exceeded. Such
is not the case when comparing the available acute inhalation health
effect reference values for formaldehyde.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is
available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
\7\ U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference
Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific
Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final
Report). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/061, and available
on-line at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
\8\ U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference
Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific
Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final
Report). U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/061, and available
on-line at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, while this means we cannot rule out the potential for acute
concerns due to formaldehyde emissions from these facilities, we note
that the worst-case acute HQs are based on conservative assumptions
(e.g., worst-case meteorology coinciding with peak short-term 1-hour
emissions from each emission point, with a person located at the point
of maximum concentration during that hour). We also note that, as
stated earlier, the emissions estimates for formaldehyde are expected
to be an overestimate of emissions, further supporting our
determination that acute risks are not a significant concern for the
wool fiberglass source category.
Comment: One commenter stated that AEGLs or ERPGs were developed
for accidental release emergency planning and are not appropriate for
assessing daily human exposure to toxic air pollutants because they do
not include adequate safety and uncertainty factors. The commenter
stated that they are not meant to evaluate the acute impacts from
routine emissions that occur over the life of a facility and cannot be
relied upon to protect the public from the adverse effects of exposure
to toxic air pollutants. The commenter concluded that their use is not
appropriate in risk assessments and urged the EPA to increase its
reliance on the California RELs to address acute exposures in the
residual risk assessments.
Response: The EPA does not rely exclusively upon AEGL or ERPG
values for assessment of acute exposures. Rather, the EPA's approach is
to consider various acute health effect reference values (see the
preamble to the November 2011 proposal (76 FR 72781)), including the
California REL, in assessing the potential for risks from acute
exposures. To better characterize the potential health risks associated
with estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key
recommendation from the SAB's peer review of the EPA's RTR risk
assessment methodologies, we generally examine a wider range of
available acute health metrics (e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our
chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the SAB's
acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and
inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in chronic
reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays for HAP
have been developed, we consider additional acute values (i.e.,
occupational and international values) to provide a more complete risk
characterization. As discussed in the preamble to the November 2011
proposal, the exposure guidelines the EPA considers depends on which
exposure guidelines are available for the various HAP emitted. The EPA
uses AEGL and ERPG values (when available) in conjunction with REL
values (when available) to characterize potential acute health risks.
However, it is often the case that HAP do not have all of these acute
reference benchmark values. In these instances, the EPA describes the
potential acute health risk in relation to the acute health values that
are available. Importantly, when interpreting the results, we are
careful to identify the benchmark being used and the health
implications associated with any specific benchmark being exceeded.
Comment: According to one commenter, the EPA`s multipathway risk
assessment fell short because the EPA did not use ``allowable''
emissions for this assessment and the proposed rule shows multipathway
risks that are 60 times greater than the EPA's threshold. The commenter
stated that the EPA acknowledged in its 2014 risk assessment that the
emissions allowed by the standard may be up to 3 times greater than
actual emissions for phenol, methanol, and formaldehyde, such that the
HQ of 30 could be 3 times higher based on allowable emissions. The
commenter stated that by using actual emissions, the EPA's analysis is
likely to be an underestimate of the health risks from multipathway
routes of exposure. The commenter supports the EPA's use of
``allowable'' as well as ``actual'' emissions to assess inhalation
risk.
Response: Consistent with previous risk assessments, the EPA
considers both allowable and actual emissions in assessing chronic
risks under CAA section 112(f)(2) (See, e.g., National Emission
Standards for Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005);
proposed and final National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous
Air Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76603, December 21,
2006). This approach is both reasonable and consistent with the
flexibility inherent in the Benzene NESHAP framework for assessing
acceptable risk and ample margin of safety, as developed in the Benzene
NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). As a general matter, modeling
allowable emission levels is inherently reasonable since this reflects
the maximum level sources could emit and still comply with national
emission standards. But, it is also reasonable to consider actual
emissions, where such data are available, in the acceptable risk and
ample margin of safety analyses. See National Emission Standards for
Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19992, 19998, April 15, 2005). The commenter
claims that limiting our review to actual emissions would be
inconsistent with the applicability section of Part 63 rules. As
explained, however, we did not limit our review to actual emissions.
The commenter also urged the agency to rely on allowable emissions
for the purpose of our acute assessment. The

[[Page 45297]]

use of allowable emissions was not considered due to the conservative
assumptions used to gauge worst-case potential acute health effects.
The conservative assumptions built into the acute health risk screening
analysis include: (1) Use of peak 1-hour emissions that are, on
average, 10 times the annual average 1-hour emission rates; (2) that
all emission points experience peak emissions concurrently; (3) worst-
case meteorology (from 1 year of local meteorology); and (4) that a
person is located downwind at the point of maximum impact during this
same 1-hour period. Thus, performing an acute screen based on allowable
emissions would be overly conservative and at best, of questionable
utility to decision makers.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA does not have authority
to consider ``total facility'' emissions in conducting the residual
risk assessments for a given source category. The commenter argued that
it would be impossible for the EPA to fulfill its unambiguous
obligation for CAA section 112(f) standards to protect public health
with an ample margin of safety in cases where facilities contain
sources in a category where the 8-year deadline for conducting the CAA
section 112(f) risk review precedes the adoption of MACT standards for
other sources at the facilities. One commenter added that CAA section
112(f)(2)(A) requires EPA to promulgate standards on a source category
basis. Another commenter continued that this provision unambiguously
requires the CAA section 112(f) risk assessment to be focused
exclusively on ``emissions from a source in the category or
subcategory,'' asserting that the EPA does not have authority to
consider emissions from any sources other than those in the source
category or subcategory under review at that time.
Response: We disagree that examining facility-wide risk in a risk
assessment conducted under CAA section 112(f) exceeds the EPA's
authority. The development of facility-wide risk estimates provides
additional information about the potential cumulative risks in the
vicinity of the RTR sources, as one means of informing potential risk-
based decisions about the RTR source category in question. While we
recognize that, because these risk estimates were derived from
facility-wide emissions estimates which have not generally been
subjected to the same level of engineering review as the source
category emission estimates, they may be less certain than our risk
estimates for the source category in question, they remain important
for providing context as long as their uncertainty is taken into
consideration.
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of the
two-step process for developing standards to address residual risk and
interpret ``acceptable risk'' and ``ample margin of safety'' as
developed in the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). In
the Benzene NESHAP, the EPA rejected approaches that would have
mandated consideration of background levels of pollution in assessing
the acceptability of risk, concluding that ``. . . comparison of
acceptable risk should not be associated with levels in polluted urban
air. With respect to considering other sources of risk from benzene
exposure and determining the acceptable risk level for all exposures to
benzene, the EPA considers this inappropriate because only the risk
associated with the emissions under consideration are relevant to the
regulation being established and, consequently, the decision being
made.'' (54 FR 38044, 38061, September 14, 1989).
Although not appropriate for consideration in the determination of
acceptable risk, we note that background risks or contributions to risk
from sources outside the source category under review could be one of
the relevant factors considered in the ample margin of safety
determination, along with cost and economic factors, technological
feasibility, and other factors. Background risks and contributions to
risk from sources outside the facilities under review were not
considered in the ample margin of safety determination for this source
category, mainly because of the significant uncertainties associated
with emissions estimates for such sources. Our approach here is
consistent with the approach we took regarding this issue in the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) RTR (71 FR 76603, December 21, 2006),
which the court upheld in the face of claims that the EPA had not
adequately considered background.
In our November 2011 proposal, we explained that for these source
categories, there are no other significant HAP emissions sources
present at wool fiberglass manufacturing and mineral wool production
facilities beyond those included in the source category. We also
explained that all significant HAP sources have been included in the
source category risk analysis. We therefore concluded that the
facility-wide risk is essentially the same as the source category risk
and that no separate facility-wide analysis was necessary (76 FR 72783,
November 25, 2011). Our evaluation of facility-wide risks did not
change our decisions under CAA section 112(f)(2) about acceptability
and ample margin of safety of the risks associated with the wool
fiberglass source categories.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category
(major sources)?
For the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category, we have
determined that the current MACT standards reduce risk to an acceptable
level. We have further evaluated the cost, emissions reductions, energy
implications and cost effectiveness of the total chromium compounds
emission limits being promulgated in this final rule and have
determined that they are cost effective, technically feasible and will
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent
adverse environmental effects.
For chromium emissions, we are finalizing the emission limit of
0.00025 pounds total chromium per ton of glass pulled for gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces, under CAA section 112(f)(2). This is based on
our assessment of emissions from newly-rebuilt gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces. Because commenters provided new information indicating that
cullet use is tied to increasing chromium emissions from gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces, we are also requiring that facilities establish
the materials mix, including the percentages of raw materials and
cullet, used in gas-fired glass-melting furnaces during the performance
test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission
limit. Affected sources must maintain the percentage of cullet in the
material mix at or below the level established during the most recent
performance test showing compliance with the standard. If a gas-fired
glass-melting furnace uses 100 percent cullet during the most recent
performance test showing compliance with the standard, then monitoring
of the cullet use on that furnace is not required until the next annual
performance test.

[[Page 45298]]

B. Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source
Category (Major Sources)

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?
As discussed in the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72803-72804, 72798), we
conducted a technology review for FA and RS bonded lines and for
furnaces that focused on identifying and evaluating developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources
in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category that have occurred
since the 1999 MACT rules were promulgated. We consulted the EPA's
RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse to identify potential technology advances
for processes similar to those covered by the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP, as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy
implications associated with the use of these technologies.
We also requested information from facilities regarding
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies, and
conducted site visits, held meetings with industry representatives, and
reviewed other information sources, such as technical literature, state
and local permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases.
For more information, see the ``Technology Review for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category Memorandum'' in the docket to
this rule.
Subsequent to the November 2011 proposal, we announced that we had
issued a CAA section 114 ICR to collect emissions data and other
information on glass-melting furnaces in order to regulate area sources
in a future action. This resulted in a near complete dataset for
emissions test data on all wool fiberglass furnaces, with the only
exceptions being furnaces at facilities that were closed or that were
shut down at the time of the 2012 testing. The data also indicated that
three gas-fired glass-melting furnaces had been rebuilt and retested,
and we also had emissions test data for these three furnaces for the
years before and after the rebuild.
a. Technology Review for Reduction of PM From Furnaces
For our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), for PM
emissions from glass-melting furnaces, we identified advances in
control measures for PM emissions. These included improvements and
advances in control technology, such as application of ESPs, as well as
developments in furnace design and the use of high-chromium furnace
refractories that had been made since promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP.
Our technology review included glass-melting furnaces at both area
and major sources. As explained in our April 2013 supplemental
proposal, the number of area sources is constantly increasing as a
result of the definition of ``wool fiberglass facility'' in Subpart
NNN. For example, in 2002, two out of 33 facilities were area sources,
but by December 2012, 20 facilities were area sources (78 FR 22377). As
also previously explained, there are no differences between the
furnaces used at major and area sources (78 FR 22377). Therefore, we
believed it was appropriate to consider all furnaces in the technology
review, under CAA section 112(d)(6).
In our November 2011 proposal, based on the responses to survey
data regarding the performance of existing control measures, we
proposed an emission limit of 0.014 pounds of PM per ton of glass
pulled for glass-melting furnaces, under CAA section 112(d)(6).
In the April 2013 supplemental proposal, in response to comments we
received on our November 2011 proposal, we revised the PM limit for
furnaces to 0.33 pounds per ton of glass pulled in order to be
consistent with our intentions to set the new limit based on technology
review.
We did not propose any further revisions to the proposed PM limit
in the November 2014 supplemental proposal.
b. Technology Review for Reduction of Chromium From Furnaces
In our November 2011 proposal, we identified refractories having a
high content of chromium, and their use in wool fiberglass furnaces, as
a new development affecting the emissions of chromium compounds from
sources since promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP. We reviewed the use of
chromium refractories (as compared to non-chromium refractories), as
well as other control technologies, such as caustic scrubbers. We
analyzed the technical feasibility and the estimated impacts (e.g.,
costs, emissions reductions, risk reductions) of applying these
developments. We then determined, based on impacts and feasibility,
whether it was necessary to propose amendments to the regulation to
require any of the identified developments.
We found that, while the furnaces and control technologies are
generally the same as those used at promulgation of the MACT standard
in 1999, there have been some developments in furnace design and
preference in control equipment. We found that developments in
refractory technology and in furnace design are inextricably linked.
Oxyfuel furnaces were not widely used prior to 1999 in the wool
fiberglass industry, due to a number of factors, especially refractory
degradation in the wool fiberglass furnace environment. At that time,
new technology of the oxyfuel furnace constructed using conventional
refractories of that time (e.g., alumina-silicate, zirconium) limited
the furnace life to 4 or 5 years. As a result, air-gas and electric
furnaces predominated in the years prior to 1999.
With the advent of new refractory technology, new furnace designs
were constructed that could be expected to last longer. With the
industry focus upon new furnace designs and technology, the research to
develop refractories that could withstand high temperatures, thermal
shock and corrosive materials yielded the development of new types of
chromium refractory products that could be used for construction of the
high-temperature oxyfuel furnace.
As a result, the wool fiberglass industry began a trend toward
oxyfuel furnaces constructed using high-chromium refractory products, a
trend that commenters noted is expected to continue into the future.
This gives rise to increased chromium emissions as a result of both
wool fiberglass raw material formulation (corrosivity) and associated
refractory degradation (i.e., furnace wear). We explained the
mechanisms of chromium emissions at length in our April 2013
supplemental proposal (78 FR 22379-22382) and in our technology review
memorandum.
We therefore found that the development of new types of chromium
refractories that could and would be used to construct entire gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces for wool fiberglass manufacturing is a
development that largely took place after promulgation of the MACT
standard in 1999. We also proposed a total chromium compounds limit of
0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled for all glass-melting furnaces.
In the 2013 supplemental proposal, we did not revise the chromium
emission limit for furnaces; however, we explained that there were two
general types of furnaces used in this industry: Gas-fired (which
include both air-gas and oxyfuel furnaces) and electric furnaces (which
include both steel shell and cold-top electric furnaces). We proposed
in the April 2013 supplemental proposal to limit the

[[Page 45299]]

applicability of the total chromium compounds emission limit to gas-
fired glass-melting furnaces for two reasons: (1) Electric furnaces do
not have chromium refractories above the glass melt line, and (2) they
do not reach the operating temperatures necessary to convert
significant amounts of trivalent to hexavalent chromium. As a result,
electric furnaces do not emit significant amounts of chromium
compounds.
We did not propose to revise the chromium compounds limit in our
November 2014 supplemental proposal. However, based on comments
received on our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we proposed that
sources would be likely to rebuild the furnace rather than install a
sodium hydroxide scrubber as previously proposed, due to revisions to
our cost estimate for this control option.
2. How did the technology review change for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category (major sources)?
We did not make any changes to the technology review for PM from
furnaces since the November 2014 supplemental proposal, and we are
finalizing the previously proposed emission limit for PM, which is 0.33
lb per ton of glass pulled.
For chromium compounds, based on the public comments and
information for glass-melting furnaces received on our November 2014
supplemental proposal, we believe it is necessary to revise our
technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6) for gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category.
Data collected on gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in 2010 and 2012
show that three furnaces tested their emissions for chromium in 2010,
then shut down or repaired, and then retested in 2012 using the same
test methods and protocols. In each case, chromium emissions were
reduced by about 2/3 as a result of having rebuilt the furnaces. In two
of the three cases, the chromium emissions before the repair or rebuild
were higher than the proposed limit (0.00006 lb/ton of glass). In a
third case, a furnace that measured 0.0006 lb/ton of glass in 2010 was
rebuilt and retested for the 2012 ICR. The second test measured
chromium at 0.0002 lb/ton of glass, a level slightly higher than our
proposed chromium emission limit.
While we recognize that the rebuilt furnaces had different designs
depending on the company's objectives at the particular facility, at
this time we believe the highest emitting rebuilt furnace was well
designed for its intended use. This furnace was rebuilt only one year
before testing, at a cost to the company of between $10-12 million. As
this is a technology review standard, we consider cost when evaluating
the technology. We consider it reasonable to evaluate the technology
based on the emission limit achieved by new furnaces, and we are
increasing the chromium limit above what was previously proposed to
account for this new furnace.
The final chromium limit also prevents operation of another furnace
that could emit chromium at the reasonable high-end rate of the highest
emitting furnace, as characterized in section VI of this preamble.
Finally, we evaluated the cost, using our revised economic analysis, of
compliance with the final limit and found that these costs are
reasonable.
Specifically, we are revising the estimated costs of rebuilding the
furnace as an option to comply with the chromium limit. We have
determined, based on the revised costs and data regarding the level of
chromium emissions that is achieved by rebuilt furnaces, that it is
necessary, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), to revise the proposed
emission limit for chromium from gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We
are finalizing a limit of 0.00025 pounds chromium compounds per ton of
glass pulled. This is a higher limit for chromium compounds than
previously proposed, because data show that this level can be achieved
by furnaces that are rebuilt, while the previously proposed level was
shown to be lower than the level supported by the data provided by
industry. We explain our decision further in the responses to key
comments below and in the Technology Review Memo for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category, available in the docket to
the rule.
We revised the cost estimate for rebuilding a gas-fired glass-
melting furnace; however, we did not revise our finding from our
technology review that rebuilding the furnace is an effective approach
for reducing chromium emissions. We also note, from our technology
review, that other options to reduce chromium from furnaces are
available to wool fiberglass manufacturers. These include raw material
substitution and installation of a properly-designed caustic (sodium
hydroxide) scrubber to the outlet of the dry electrostatic precipitator
(DESP). These other options are presented in more detail in the
Economic Analysis, which accompanied the April 2013 supplemental
proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
We received comments in support of and against our proposed
technology review. The following is a summary of the key comments
received regarding the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category and our responses. Additional comments on
the technology review and responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1042).
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's depiction in the 2011
proposal (76 FR 72770, November 25, 2011) of high-chromium refractories
and furnace control technologies as new technology developments is
inaccurate, as demonstrated by the following evidence: (1) High-
chromium refractories have been used in the wool fiberglass industry
since the early 1980s; (2) the EPA was aware in 1999 that chromium was
emitted from wool fiberglass plants, as demonstrated by the following
statement in its 1999 promulgation preamble ``The hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emitted by the facilities covered by this rule include
compounds of three metals (arsenic, chromium, lead) and three organic
HAP,'' \9\ although chromium emissions (and all metal HAP) at that time
were insignificant and PM was chosen as a surrogate for those low
emissions; and (3) chromium emission reductions have been achieved by
the industry since initial MACT implementation in 1999 without using
any new control technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ 64 FR 31695 (June 14, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response: Regarding the characterization of high chromium
refractories as a new technology, chromium refractories for use in the
glass industry have been a developing technology. According to
information provided by the wool fiberglass and refractories industries
as part of this rulemaking, significant problems with their use in the
furnace had to be overcome before wool fiberglass furnaces could be
constructed using them. For example, when fused-cast refractories
started to be developed using high chromium materials, some companies
discovered ways to manufacture those products that maintained the
integrity of the refractory over a long time and in extreme
temperatures, making these products candidates for trials in the wool
fiberglass industry. At least two

[[Page 45300]]

major corporations \10\ have developed high chrome refractory product
lines since 1999, and they characterize these refractories on their Web
sites as `new' products developed for the fiberglass industry.
Therefore, our characterization of these products as `new' refers to
the improvements in refractory and is not meant to imply that using
chromium refractories, in and of itself, is new.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ The North American Refractories Company (NARCO) and the
Saint-Gobain Corporation Web sites advertise product lines of
refractories that are 50%-95% chromium for use in the glass fiber
and wool fiberglass industries. From NARCO's Web site: ``Wool and C-
Glass makers rely on NARCO's extensive line of chrome-alumina
materials, the SERV and JADE brands, available in standard pressed
brick, large cast shapes, and Cast-in-Place linings. Supplying the
complete furnace refractory package required for this application is
a strength of NARCO''. (https://www.anhrefractories.com/glass-refractory). From Saint-Gobain's Web site: ``High temperature
sintered chromium oxide based refractories have unequalled
resistance against high temperature corrosion by molten
SiO2-Al2O3-
Fe2O3-CaO/MgO slags and by certain glass wool
compositions, in an oxidizing environment. Saint-Gobain Ceramics has
pioneered and patented a unique range of chromium oxide-alumina-
zirconia refractory compositions, marketed as . . .'' (from https://www.refractories.saint-gobain.com/Chromium-Oxide.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, we noted in the November 2011 proposal that we identified
``improvements'' in PM emissions controls, not that we identified
``new'' controls. We acknowledged in both our November 2011 and April
2013 supplemental proposals that sodium hydroxide scrubbers are not
currently used in the wool fiberglass industry for removal of chromium,
but that these controls are used in metallurgical processes and in the
chromium electroplating industry for the removal of hexavalent
chromium. We stated in those proposals that we were considering
applying scrubber technology to this source category; however, as
discussed in the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68020-69024), the
technology basis for the chromium standard is more frequent furnace
rebuilds, not scrubber technology.
Moreover, as we explained in our 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR
22380), the type of furnace used to produce wool fiberglass at the
highest emitting wool fiberglass manufacturing source was the type of
furnace that is expected to dominate the industry in the future as a
new and very efficient energy source. The oxyfuel furnace was not
identified in our 1999 MACT standard as a separate technology. While we
acknowledge that wool fiberglass furnaces are not `new' technologies,
the oxyfuel furnace is both new to this industry and its use is
increasing. As the industry has commented, air-gas furnaces are
becoming increasingly difficult to permit, while an oxyfuel furnace has
no such restrictions due to its low PM and NOX emissions
profile.
We are not changing our assessment of the industry controls as
having improved since 1999, and we are lowering the PM limit in the
final rule from 0.5 to 0.33 pounds PM per ton of glass pulled. This
limit codifies the current good practices and PM controls within the
industry while not imposing additional costs to industry.
Regarding the commenter's allegation that chromium emissions were
insignificant in 1999, and on that basis the EPA should not set
chromium limits for this industry, we do not agree. The EPA has the
responsibility to regulate air toxics under section 112 and to protect
the health and environment surrounding these facilities as we are doing
in this final rule. Moreover, due to source testing at the wool
fiberglass industry, we have more information now than we had in 1999,
and the industry's technology (that is, both the furnaces and
refractories used) has changed.
Regarding the statement that, since initial MACT implementation in
1999, industry has reduced chromium emissions without using any new
control technologies, the industry did not provide data showing that
chromium emissions have been reduced.
Comment: One commenter argued that chromium emissions from glass
furnaces do not increase with age and that a relationship between
furnace age and chromium emissions is not statistically significant.
The commenter argued that erosion of the refractories is slow and there
is no substantial increase in chromium emissions over time. The
commenter noted that the EPA asserted that ``when the glass-melting
furnace is constructed using refractories containing high percentages
of chromium, the emission levels of chromium compounds continuously
increase over the life of the furnace according to the increasingly
exposed refractory surface area.'' The commenter noted that the EPA
further explains: ``It is our understanding that because of the
corrosive properties of the molten glass, fresh refractory is
continuously exposed to the molten glass along the metal/glass contact
line in the glass-melting furnace process. This increases the surface
area of the refractory that is exposed to the molten glass. As a
result, when the glass furnace is constructed using high chromium
refractories, the emission levels of chromium compounds continuously
increase over the life of the furnace.'' The commenter stated that this
is not correct. The commenter explained that surface area of refractory
exposed to molten glass does not substantially increase, nor do the
chromium emissions as a result. The commenter asserted that the slight
increase in surface area as between uneven and smooth surfaces of new
brick exposed to molten glass cannot explain the major difference that
the one source exhibited on chromium emissions. In fact, the commenter
observed, the testing results provided by the industry included
furnaces in all stages of their life. The commenter argued that given
the nearly constant surface area as refractory erodes, and the
homogeneous chrome content throughout the brick, there would be no
substantial increased chromium emissions over time in the manner the
EPA asserts. Furthermore, according to the commenter, the erosion
process is very slow given the lifespan of these furnaces.
The commenter stated that the EPA reports that ``[o]ne industry
spokesperson estimated that 20,000 pounds per year of refractory are
worn away from the inside walls of one wool fiberglass furnace and
ducted to the control device before venting to the atmosphere.'' The
commenter contended that the context of that statement is that furnace
emissions are going through control devices that already meet the
definition of BACT for particulate and if this were normal for the
industry furnaces, they could not have the long lives that they
typically exhibit.
The commenter provided a detailed statistical analysis to
demonstrate that a furnace rebuild is not a viable control technology
by using EPA's data to show that a relationship between furnace age and
chromium emissions is not statistically significant. Using the EPA's
data, the commenter also pointed out specific examples of apparent
contradictions with the EPA's conclusions, such as the data from one
oxyfuel furnace showing lower chromium emissions at the end of its life
than at the beginning of its life, and showing no change in emissions
after a furnace rebuild. The commenter also points to data from another
furnace demonstrating that emissions lessen with furnace age.
The commenter contended that the proposed chromium limit is based
on unproven technology, and that experimental and theoretical
technologies do not constitute ``available'' or ``generally available''
technology. The commenter provided the results of various analyses to

[[Page 45301]]

demonstrate that there is no proven technology that can meet the
proposed limit. The technologies represented in the commenter's
analyses include high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, Venturi
scrubber, 3-stage filter with water cleaning, membrane baghouse, and
caustic scrubber. The commenter described these technologies as
``theoretical'' and ``unproven,'' because they have never been
installed at the outlet of a DESP serving a wool fiberglass
manufacturing furnace. The commenter contended that a membrane baghouse
is used to control emissions from the industry, but has not been
demonstrated to achieve the proposed chromium limit. The commenter
provided feedback from vendors of these technologies to demonstrate
that pilot tests would need to be conducted prior to vendors committing
to guaranteeing a specific performance level. The commenter also
investigated the performance capacity of the sodium hydroxide scrubber
and found that this technology is not transferable to a wool fiberglass
manufacturing process.
Response: We disagree with the commenters on the basis of direct
statements, measurements and information on refractory content,
production rates and furnace life received from industry sources. We
issued a CAA section 114 ICR to all five wool fiberglass manufacturing
companies and visited four of the manufacturing facilities in December
2012 to improve our understanding of the source of the chromium
emissions from this industry. The results of these activities include
source test data, information on chromium content of refractories used
to construct different parts of all types of furnaces, and a deeper
understanding of the properties of materials and technologies used to
manufacture wool fiberglass. We were able to confirm our earlier
statements presenting our understanding of this industry. Specifically,
we confirmed that the furnace refractory are eroded and corroded during
the life of the furnace both beneath the level of the glass, at the
glass/metal contact line, and, in the case of gas-fired furnaces, above
the level of the glass. We also learned that electric furnaces do not
have the same temperature profile as gas-fired furnaces and, therefore,
typically do not emit chromium at the level of the gas-fired furnaces.
We also learned that oxyfuel furnaces are an important new
technology both in terms of energy consumption and potential to emit
SO2 and NOX, but have the greatest potential
(followed by gas-fired furnaces) to emit chromium. We have established
that furnace age affects chromium emissions, as documented in
``Memorandum Chromium Emissions and Furnace Age, August 14, 2014'' and
``Explanation of the Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions from Gas-Fired
Furnaces, June 3, 2015'', which are available in the public docket for
this rulemaking.\11\ We also disagree with the commenter's statistical
analysis and argument that the EPA has not sufficiently established
that there is a relationship between furnace age and chromium
emissions. We have based our conclusions on industry comments, furnace
emissions testing, technical literature, and other available data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the letter dated March 12, 2012, the commenter stated that
``Fiber glass furnaces necessarily use chrome-based refractory products
(see Appendices A and B, spreadsheets showing typical chrome
content),'' and that ``Virtually all of the above-glass refractory in
gas-oxy furnaces, unlike other furnace classes, is chrome-based
refractory.''
In that letter, the commenter continued, explaining that ``Since
the advent of chrome-based refractory, insulation manufacturers have
been able to extend furnace life more than 50 percent. Without these
refractories, wool fiberglass manufacturers would not likely be
competitive in the global marketplace. Moreover, there currently is no
available material that is as good as and has the structural integrity
of chrome-based refractory to handle the higher temperature and more
corrosive atmosphere inside gas-oxy furnaces.''
Regarding the use of chromium refractories in oxyfuel furnaces, and
the continual increase in chromium emissions that result, the commenter
added that oxyfuel furnaces have greater chromium emissions than other
furnaces because, based on industry experience, the combination of
furnace design, glass composition, higher flame temperatures, higher
water vapor concentration, and an oxidizing atmosphere with increased
concentration of oxides (filterable and condensable PM) can cause more
rapid deterioration of the refractory in a gas-oxy fiberglass
insulation manufacturing furnace than in other types of glass furnaces.
Regarding the comparison of operating temperatures of oxyfuel to
other furnaces, the commenter added that, ``One advantage of gas-oxy
firing is the large reduction in NOX, due to the reduction
of nitrogen from the air in combustion, and the reduction in the volume
of flue gases. One disadvantage of gas-oxy firing is that the peak
flame temperatures are up to 40 percent higher than gas-air furnaces.
The gas-oxy burner flame does not have to heat the added air
components. In gas-oxy glass furnaces, peak flame temperatures approach
5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas air-gas flame temperatures peak at
about 3,560 degrees Fahrenheit, and cold-top electric melters are even
lower due to having no heat input above the glass line.''
Regarding the relationship of furnace temperature and glass
chemistry to chromium emissions, the commenter explained that ``with
the reduction in the flue gas volume, the concentration of glass batch
ingredient volatiles and water vapor in the atmosphere (and flue gas)
is also much higher. The higher temperature of the gas-oxy burners can
volatize the glass batch components more readily than in other
furnaces. These glass volatiles that contain alkaline earth oxides
reduce the temperature that chrome can be vaporized to as low as 1,832
degrees Fahrenheit. While the chrome must still reach temperatures of
2,700 to 2,900 degrees Fahrenheit to oxidize the chromium from the
trivalent to hexavalent state, the potentially increased volatiles can
contribute to higher chrome emissions. The 40 percent higher peak flame
temperature of oxyfuel burners also raises the probability that
available chrome (sic) will encounter the conditions that will convert
it to the hexavalent state. Combined, these differences generate
conditions that are more corrosive to chrome refractory and can create
favorable conditions for conversion to hex chrome (CR206) inside a gas-
oxyfueled furnace. These severe conditions do not exist in the other
fiber glass furnace classes.''
Regarding the commenters' assertion that wool fiberglass furnaces
could not be eroded by the molten fiberglass at the rate stated by
industry, we note that the range of furnace life and rates of erosion
did not originate from the EPA, but from information obtained from the
industry itself. Further, we note that at the rate stated by industry
and the control efficiency achieved by fabric filters, that refractory
degrading at a rate of 20,000 pounds per year and fabric filters
achieving 99-percent efficiency would emit 200 pounds PM annually from
the contribution of the refractory alone. Using industry refractory
content of 95-percent chromium, 190 of the 200 pounds of annual PM
would be chromium compounds; 93 percent (177 pounds) of that chromium
would be in the hexavalent state, which is within the range measured at
oxyfuel and air-gas furnaces in this industry.

[[Page 45302]]

Regarding the comment that there is no other technology available
to meet the chromium limit, we note that all furnaces at existing area
sources and all but two furnaces at existing major sources currently
meet the final chromium limit. Regarding these two furnaces, the EPA
has established that a furnace rebuild is an approach that existing
facilities have used to reduce their chromium emissions for furnaces
over 6 years old, as discussed in section III.D of the preamble to the
2014 supplemental proposal. Further, the rule requires sources to meet
the emission limits, but does not require the use of any specific
control device or vendor. Sources may use whatever means they choose to
meet the limits, such as more frequent furnace rebuilds, using non-
chromium or low chromium refractories in furnace rebuilds, enhanced
baghouse operation, improved maintenance and alternative controls, and
furnace design features, changes in raw material, or scrubbers.
Comment: Two commenters asserted that the proposed chromium
emissions limit would require technological controls that are not cost
effective. According to one commenter, the installation of these
controls would be economically damaging to the fiberglass insulation
industry.
The commenters cited the agency's estimated cost of $300 per pound
of hexavalent chromium removed if a scrubber is used to comply and the
agency's estimated cost of $12,000 per pound of chromium compounds
removed if operations with high-chromium refractory are rebricked with
low-chromium refractory. According to the commenters, the conclusion
that the proposed new chromium limit is ``feasible and cost effective''
is unreasonable and arbitrary. One commenter observed that the EPA's
cost-effectiveness values would be $600,000 per ton of chromium removed
for scrubbers and $24 million per ton of chromium removed for
rebricking, assuming either proposed compliance solution would actually
be successful. As such, the commenters stated that the agency's cost-
effectiveness analysis does not support the conclusion that the new
chromium limit is authorized and justified under CAA section 112(d)(6).
One commenter claimed that the EPA's conclusion is arbitrary because
the cost-effectiveness values are far in excess of the cost-
effectiveness values the EPA has found acceptable in prior CAA section
112 cost-effectiveness analyses and the EPA has not explained why such
high cost-effectiveness values are justified, especially considering
risk.
According to the commenters, fiberglass insulation producers
provide economic benefits by adding manufacturing jobs to the U.S.
economy, shipment of finished product to markets throughout the
country, and export of product to foreign markets. According to one
commenter, one reason jobs are being sent overseas is the existing
regulatory requirements and concerns about the future regulatory
climate growing even more stringent. If revisions are not made to the
proposal as recommended by the commenter, many of the companies will
cease operation and it is likely that foreign competitors will flood
the market with substandard product.
Response: We have reviewed the available chromium test data and
information provided in response to our 2011 proposal, 2013
supplemental proposal, and 2014 supplemental proposal (76 FR 72770,
November 25, 2011; 78 FR 22370, April 15, 2013; and 79 FR 68011,
November 13, 2014) and we have revised our technology review, the
chromium limit and our economic impact analysis for the final rule.
The EPA is finalizing a chromium limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of
glass pulled. Based on emissions data submitted in 2010 and 2012 by all
wool fiberglass manufacturers on every furnace type, the EPA determined
that this is a limit reflected by well-designed furnaces in this source
category.
As discussed in section VI.B of this preamble, all three of the
furnaces that were tested in 2010, then rebuilt or repaired and
retested in 2012, showed lower chromium emissions as a result of the
furnace rebuild or repair. Of these three furnaces, two emitted
chromium below the previously proposed limit of 0.00006 pounds of
chromium per ton of glass pulled after the rebuild or repair. One, a
new furnace, tested at about 0.0002 pounds of chromium per ton of
glass, and had been rebuilt at a cost of about $10 million.
Consequently, we revised our limit to reflect the level of chromium
emissions that is achieved by a well-designed rebuilt furnace.
Thus, the final emission limit is a level that has been
demonstrated by recently rebuilt furnaces. We note that a key aspect of
our changing the final chromium limit was to account for this new
furnace, which measured chromium emissions at a level slightly higher
than the limit we proposed.
In our November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68012 at 68021),
we presented a chart showing chromium emissions by furnace age. That
chart indicates 0.00025 pounds per ton represents the level below which
rebuilt furnaces operate and many gas-fired furnaces operate below this
level beyond their tenth year. We are aware of new developments in the
field of chromium refractories that reduce the spalling and degradation
of the refractory face. We consider many of these to be design features
which a wool fiberglass company would consider when planning to rebuild
a furnace. These data demonstrate that well-designed furnaces (that is,
furnaces designed and operated to minimize chromium emissions) can
continue to meet the chromium limit as they age.
This final rule does not limit the materials with which a gas-fired
furnace may be constructed. Specifically, we recognize from industry
commenters that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces used by the wool
fiberglass industry will continue to use chromium refractories in their
glass-melting furnaces. To help ensure that these sources are well-
designed to minimize chromium emissions, wool fiberglass gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces will be required to conduct chromium emissions
performance testing annually.
Two facilities are projected to need to improve performance. For
these two facilities, the total capital costs are $21.4 million and the
total annualized compliance costs are estimated to be $944,000 for
furnace rebuilds and compliance testing. For all other major source
facilities subject to the chromium limit, the cost of compliance will
include only the cost of emissions testing ($10,000 per furnace for a
total of $80,000). Based on the EPA's economic impact analysis, which
shows that the impacts to wool fiberglass manufacturers should be low,
we believe that the compliance costs of the final rule are reasonable
and will not be economically devastating to the wool fiberglass
insulation industry.
Regarding the comment requesting that the EPA compare the cost-
effectiveness of the proposed chromium limit (i.e., 0.00006 lb/ton of
glass) to the cost effectiveness of standards finalized under other
rulemakings, cost-effectiveness values for hexavalent chromium are
generally not comparable to values for other less toxic pollutants. We
note, however, that the values now estimated for hexavalent chromium
are now well within the range that we have considered cost effective
for other highly toxic pollutants (e.g., mercury and lead) in past
actions. CAA section 112(d) neither specifies nor mandates a cost
methodology. We note that in Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200
D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit found the EPA's chosen methodology
``reasonable'' because the statute ``did

[[Page 45303]]

not mandate a specific method of cost analysis.''
Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's cost analysis for
furnace rebuilds in support of the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR
68011, November 13, 2014) underestimated the cost effectiveness by
using the wrong costing method, incorrectly applying the costing method
used, using the wrong discount rate, and considering costs over only
the short term. The commenter provided the document ``National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Risk and Technology
Review (RTR) For the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries
Economic Analysis Report,'' January 2015, as the source of this
critique of the EPA's analysis.
The commenter argued that the Net Present Value (NPV) methodology
is not an appropriate method for calculating cost effectiveness of the
proposed accelerated rebuild schedule if the EPA is evaluating the cost
of a control as the single factor to consider, and also stated that
they could not identify any EPA rules that have used this approach. The
commenter suggested that a replacement cost analysis, as described in
section 2.5.5.6 of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual,\12\ is
more appropriate, and more commonly used by the EPA for this situation.
The commenter provided cost-effectiveness results (dollars per pound of
chromium emission reduction), as follows: Using a replacement cost
methodology, the cost effectiveness was estimated by the commenter to
be in the range of $366,161 to $527,334 at major source facilities and
$67,808 to $97,654 at area sources; and using the NPV methodology, the
cost effectiveness was estimated by the commenter to be in the range of
$398,939 to $403,532 at major source facilities and $206,857 to
$209,239 at area sources (each range represents the cost effectiveness
calculated over 10 years versus 30 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ https://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter further contended that the EPA erred in applying the
NPV methodology in that the EPA excluded from its cost analysis the
cost of losing the residual value (1 to 3 years) of a furnace's life,
which contradicts the EPA's NPV methodology. The commenter explained
that the EPA calculated what a $10 million investment losing 7 percent
a year would lose in 7 years versus 10 years, and then concluded that
the difference was the cost difference of the investments. The
commenter contended, however, that both calculations are incorrect in
how the process of NPV is used for comparison: With a furnace re-
bricking, the $10 million represents the investment that is consumed
over the periods of comparison; and using the 10 years as a base case,
the $10 million is consumed and has no residual value remaining at the
end of the 10 year period. The commenter concluded that, therefore, the
$10 million consumed with no residual value must be compared to a $10
million investment that retains a residual value at the end of 7 years,
but yet must be replaced (i.e., discounting the residual value at the
end of the 7 years to present value (``PV'') and adding that to the
annual costs).
The commenter also objected to the EPA's use of a 7-percent
discount rate because small variations in the discount rate can
significantly bias the cost-benefit analysis. The commenter alleged
that the EPA chooses radically different discount rates for different
regulations, generally providing no explanation for this variation,
which appears arbitrary and capricious because it often chooses
relatively high discount rates (between 7 and 10 percent) for
regulations imposing future costs and low rates (around 3 percent) for
regulations creating future benefits.
The commenter further argued that the EPA's cost analysis failed to
look at the longer-term cost of 7-year rebuilds, beyond 10 years into
the future. The commenter provided the results of an analysis that
presented the impact over 30 years, which show higher costs for both
area and major sources.
Response: Regarding the comment that the EPA used the wrong costing
method in the 2014 supplemental proposal, the EPA has reviewed the
information provided by the commenter and, based on that information,
which discussed the estimation of costs for changes in equipment that
may occur as a route to comply with NESHAPs, we agree that the EPA's
replacement costing approach described in section 2.5.5.6 of the EPA
Air Pollution Control Cost Manual \13\ is more appropriate for
estimating the cost of furnace rebuilds than the NPV approach used for
the 2014 supplemental proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ https://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We received new information from the industry that they believed
the replacement costing (RC) approach was a better fit for the
situation and approach than the NPV approach, which is what we had used
at proposal. The NPV evaluated the loss to the company from having to
rebuild a furnace earlier, (i.e., at 7 years into the furnace campaign
instead of at 10 years.) The RC approach applies the equivalent uniform
cost method as defined in the control cost manual. This is different
because it calculates a uniform, or equal cost across the time of the
investment, and the NPV is not calculated in the same way. While we
note that use of the NPV is not necessarily incorrect in this case, we
agree that in other similar rules whereby this type of approach was
introduced (that is, replacing a process unit before the end of its
useful life, or campaign in this case), the replacement costing
approach was applied instead of the NPV. Therefore, we agree with the
commenter and have changed our cost estimation method to be consistent.
We also revised the capital cost estimate for rebuilding a furnace
to include the cost ($700,000) of transferring production to another
facility while the furnace is being rebuilt, based on information
provided by the commenter. Based on the revised cost-estimating
procedure and capital cost ($10.7 million), we estimated the total
annualized cost for rebuilding a furnace to be $462,000.
Regarding the comment that the EPA used the wrong discount rate,
the EPA's use of a 7-percent interest rate is in accordance with OMB
guidance under Circular A-4 and Circular A-94. This interest rate has
been used in the cost estimates for all rulemakings issued by the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) since Circular A-
94 was issued in 1992 and affirmed by Circular A-4 in 2003. This
includes the 2011 proposal for the mineral wool and wool fiberglass
rules, and both supplemental proposals. In addition, the EPA Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual \14\, a key cost guidance document
prepared by the EPA and widely used in the Agency as a basis for cost
estimation that has been available in its current edition since 2003,
discusses the use of the 7-percent interest rate for rulemakings at
length. The adherence by OAQPS to OMB guidance with regards to
annualizing capital costs in its rulemaking has been consistent, and
the information provided by the commenter on interest rates is not
germane to the analysis for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ https://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/c_allchs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's proposed chromium
limit in the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68011, November 13,
2014) was not cost effective because the EPA's cost analysis was
missing the following costs associated with furnace rebuilds: New
materials (refractory bricks); recycling and disposal of old material;
installation

[[Page 45304]]

labor; maintenance; loss of production; and loss of labor force. The
commenter retained a consultant to conduct a cost analysis of a furnace
rebuild, and the analysis is provided by the commenter. The analysis
concluded that the total investment of a furnace refractory rebuild is
estimated to be about $28 million, assuming the EPA's furnace rebuild
cost of $10 million. The $28 million includes approximately $7.9
million for all materials, $2 million for installation labor, $60,000
for brick recycling/disposal, $8 million for additional maintenance, $9
million for loss of production, and $384,000 for loss of labor force.
The commenter explained that the loss of production cost is based on
200 tons per day throughput, $0.65 per pound of reproduction, and 35-
day shutdown period. These costs are listed in Table 2 of Appendix 2 of
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-1042-0348. The commenter explained that the
additional maintenance cost includes maintenance of control equipment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
performed while the furnace is shut down during rebuild, as follows:

Maintaining safe and proper operation at a wool fiberglass
manufacturing facility requires that the facility maintain melted
glass within the furnace at all times. In addition to the furnace
operating continuously, all other equipment used in the
manufacturing process, including air pollution control equipment
operates continuously during normal operation. During a scheduled
rebuild of the furnace refractory, a facility will use that downtime
to perform routine maintenance on the entire manufacturing line.
This maintenance requires longer downtimes to accomplish because it
includes the support equipment for the furnaces as well as the major
down line equipment such as forming sections, curing ovens, and line
drives. This maintenance is done at this time to avoid the other
operational expenses and product supply issues incurred when taking
extended downtimes. Therefore, when a facility plans a refractory
rebuild, it must consider the additional costs and logistics
associated with the routine repair and general maintenance of the
entire manufacturing line. NAIMA [North American Insulation
Manufacturers Association] members estimate these additional costs
to be in the range of $6,000,000 to $10,000,000, and include
material (wear part replacements, pollution control device
maintenance, electrical preventative maintenance, etc.) and labor to
perform this maintenance. (Appendix 2 of Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
1042-0348).

Response: As noted in the information provided by the commenter
(see Appendix 2 of Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042-0348), the EPA's
capital cost estimate of $10 million includes material costs,
installation labor, and brick recycling/disposal costs. We also revised
the capital cost estimate for rebuilding a furnace to include the cost
($700,000) of transferring production to another facility while the
furnace is being rebuilt, based on information provided by the
commenter. We disagree that the cost of additional maintenance for
control devices performed while the furnace is being rebuilt should be
included in the total capital cost estimate because these costs are not
directly related to rebuilding the furnace (i.e., the furnace could be
rebuilt without performing maintenance on control equipment). We also
disagree with the commenter that the cost of lost labor force suggested
by the comment should be included because we believe that workers would
be reassigned to other duties at the facility (including activities
related to rebuilding the furnace) while the furnace is shut down.
Comment: One commenter indicated that facilities will need to
install control equipment to achieve the proposed chromium standard and
that the EPA has grossly underestimated the cost of this equipment for
major sources. One commenter provided cost-effectiveness estimates (in
dollars per pound of chromium emission reduction) developed by Trinity
Consultants for various technologies: HEPA filter would be $18,500 to
$24,100; Venturi scrubber would be $29,700 to $41,700; 3-stage filter
after DESP would be $49,100 to $63,900.
Response: The EPA amended the proposed chromium limit for major
sources to be 0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled. Based on
emission data submitted to the EPA in 2010 and 2012 by all major source
wool fiberglass manufacturers for every furnace type, the EPA
determined that all but two major source furnaces currently meet this
chromium limit. For those two sources that will not initially meet the
finalized chromium limit, the EPA determined that a furnace rebuild may
be conducted to achieve the limit with no additional control
technologies (e.g., scrubber).
Note that the finalized chromium limit applies to gas-fired
furnaces and does not apply to electric furnaces. Electric furnaces at
major sources will not be subject to the final chromium emission
limits, so wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities operating electric
furnaces will not incur any additional costs for compliance with the
finalized chromium limits.
Comment: One commenter asserted that the EPA should subcategorize
sources by furnace type because the chromium emissions test data
indicate significant differences among wool fiberglass furnaces and
furnace type. The commenter further asserted that non-oxyfuel furnaces
should not have a chromium limit, and that oxyfuel furnaces should be
further subcategorized to limit any applicable chromium emission limits
to only those furnaces that warrant such limits. A second commenter
asserted that the EPA should not subcategorize by furnace type.
One commenter suggested the following list of subcategories:
Oxyfuel, specialty, steel shell, air-gas, cold-top electric. The
commenter characterized the EPA's authority to subcategorize as broad
and discretionary, noting that the CAA authorizes the EPA to
``distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category'' in establishing MACT standards, and that the EPA retains
discretion in important respects in setting floors for MACT standards
within the statutory framework in order to promulgate MACT standards
that best serve the public interest. The commenter continued,
``Congress authorized EPA to subcategorize source categories based on
classes, types and sizes of sources which will result in different
[f]loors for different subcategories.'' The commenter observed that the
EPA's criteria for subcategorization include ``air pollution control
differences, process operation . . ., emissions characteristics,
control device applicability and costs, safety, and opportunities for
pollution prevention.'' The commenter also noted that the EPA had
incorrectly stated ``[f]urnace construction and refractory composition
were not factors that were presented by industry as having an effect on
HAP emissions, and those factors were not used as a basis of
representativeness for the resulting data set,'' which contradicted the
May 5, 2010 testing proposal letter sent to the EPA that categorized
furnaces by construction and identified furnaces as having an effect on
emissions. The commenter stated that this identification by furnace
type in the May 5, 2010 letter is precisely what the EPA should
consider when subcategorizing.
The commenter asserted that no subcategories except oxyfuel
furnaces should have a chromium limit, noting that non-oxyfuel furnaces
(steel shell, cold-top electric, air-gas, and specialty) have extremely
low to non-detectable chromium emissions and referred to three
supporting references: A summary of the chromium content of
refractories and chromium emissions (attachment 8 of comment letter),
the test reports sent to the EPA as a basis for the comment, and a
technology review of glass furnaces (attachment 10 of the comment

[[Page 45305]]

letter).\15\ The commenter stated that the technology review
(attachment 10) concluded that oxyfuel combustion has a much higher
potential for generating hexavalent chromium emissions as compared to
air-gas or other types of furnaces based on the following conclusions:
(1) Chromium emissions result from volatilization from the surface of
chromium alumina refractories used at or above the glass line in the
melting furnaces, and (2) the most significant variable with respect to
quantity of chromium volatilized and to the presence of hexavalent
chromium is the flame temperature. The commenter cited the study's
recommendations regarding subcategorization: ``Because of the very
significant flame temperature differences between oxyfuel and air-gas
furnaces (5,035 degrees Fahrenheit versus 3,562 degrees Fahrenheit,
respectively), there is engineering rationale to differentiate or
subcategorize the furnaces by combustion type from a standpoint of
emissions . . . Other furnaces, such as cold-top melters and steel
shell melters, should be in any lower emissions subcategory''
(attachment 10, p. 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Denis A. Brosnan, Ph.D., PE, ``Technology Review, Chromium
Emissions in Wool Fiberglass Melting Furnaces,'' December 10, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The commenter further asserted that the EPA should go a step
further and subcategorize oxyfuel furnaces to regulate only those
furnaces that pose a concern. The commenter stated that the other
oxyfuel furnaces other than the CertainTeed Kansas City, Kansas
facility (a total of 12 furnaces) do not pose a concern because they
show low chromium emissions and do not approach a level of emissions
that would trigger MACT applicability. The commenter recommended the
following possible approaches for subcategorizing oxyfuel furnaces: (1)
Establish a subcategory of the oxyfuel furnaces based on variation in
demonstrated chromium emissions; and (2) establish a subcategory of the
oxyfuel furnaces based on sources that can demonstrate a less than 1-
in-1 million risk (using a risk-based source threshold limit of 25
pounds per year).
Another commenter urged the EPA not to subcategorize the glass-
melting furnaces used in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category. The commenter supported the EPA's recognition at proposal
that it was inappropriate to subcategorize in the wool fiberglass
source category, given that there are no relevant differences that
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within the
category. The commenter argued that use of different types of furnace
bricks does not qualify as a basis for subcategorization because
sources of the same class, type, and size use different bricks.
According to the commenter, the EPA may not subcategorize the source
category into high chromium-emitters and low chromium-emitters because
that would violate the purpose of protecting public health and the
purpose of ensuring that the best-performers drive CAA section 112(d)
standards to become stronger. The commenter observed that best-
performers may have lower emissions, in part, because of the materials
they use in their process or in their equipment. The commenter
emphasized that the EPA may not lawfully subcategorize in a way that
would place the best and worst performers into their own separate
subcategories. The commenter asserted that the EPA should ensure that
it sets standards for the entire source category that meet CAA section
112 requirements, rather than subcategorizing in a way that may allow a
source to evade stronger emission requirements.
Response: In today's final rule, we are promulgating a PM limit
under CAA section 112(d)(6) that is applicable to all glass melting
furnaces in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing major source category. In
our November 2011 proposal, we explained that in conducting our
technology review, we found that most sources had reported PM emissions
that were less than 10 percent of the current limit with several
sources achieving PM emissions that were two to three orders of
magnitude lower than the current MACT limit. We reasoned that new
furnace designs and improvements in control devices operations, design,
and bags since promulgation of the 1999 MACT were most likely
responsible for reductions in PM emissions. As previously explained,
the EPA may use surrogates to regulate HAP if there is reasonable basis
to do so. In several rulemakings, we have used PM as a surrogate ``for
HAP metals because PM control technology traps HAP metal particles and
other particulates indiscriminately.'' National Lime Association v.
EPA, 233 F.3d at 639. We continue to believe that PM controls would be
effective for chromium emissions commensurate with the levels from both
steel and electric furnaces used by wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities.
In today's rule, we are also promulgating a chromium compounds
limit under CAA section 112(d)(6) that will apply to gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces. As explained in the April 2013 supplemental proposal,
electric furnaces emit metal HAP including chromium at generally lower
emission levels than gas-fired furnaces. For example, because they
operate at higher temperatures, gas-fired furnaces are constructed with
chromium refractories at various parts of the furnace that are above
the molten glass, including the crown. Temperatures above the melt in
gas-fired furnaces range from 2500 to 4500 degrees Fahrenheit, and
these temperatures are sufficient to convert chromium to its hexavalent
state. When chromium is available, as it is in the refractories above
the melt in gas-fired furnaces, it may be converted to the hexavalent
state by the heat of the gas-fired furnace. Thus, gas-fired furnaces
have the potential to emit elevated levels of chromium, even when
meeting the total PM limit (78 FR 22379-82; 78 FR 22386). These higher
chromium emissions do not occur with electric furnaces because they are
constructed with either non-chromium refractories (cold-top electric)
or steel in place of refractories (electric steel shell) above the
glass/metal line. As also explained in our 2013 supplemental proposal,
available test data from both electric and steel shell glass-melting
furnaces consistently showed chromium emissions below the detection
level of the emissions measurement method (78 FR 22379-80). Furnace
construction and source test data also show that electric furnaces are
not constructed using high-chromium refractories above the glass-metal
line, do not reach the temperatures necessary to transform chromium to
the hexavalent state, and do not emit significant amounts of chromium
compounds, as do the gas-fired furnaces. In fact, all test data for
electric furnaces show that chromium emissions were below the detection
limit or were at least one order of magnitude below the proposed limit.
Based on test data and statements from industry, we confirmed that gas-
fired glass-melting furnaces are constructed using similar high-
chromium refractories as one high emitting glass-melting furnace, that
chromium emissions increase with furnace age as the refractories age,
and that the type of furnace at the high emitter is an emerging new
technology that is preferred across the industry where a source of
industrial oxygen is economically available.
Additionally, as also explained in today's final rule, we are
finalizing a chromium compounds limit, under the ample margin of safety
step of CAA section 112(f)(2), that will also apply to gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces. As explained above, gas-fired (oxyfuel and

[[Page 45306]]

air-gas) furnaces have the greatest potential to emit chromium
compounds because they have the internal temperature, the availability
of oxygen, reactivity, and corrosivity of the furnace environment that
are typical of wool fiberglass furnaces. In the 2013 supplemental
proposal, we explained that the elevated chromium emissions from gas-
fired furnaces are of concern due to the toxic nature of the type of
chromium emitted--hexavalent chromium--and the effects associated with
its inhalation. For example, hexavalent chromium is classified as a
Class A known human carcinogen (78 FR 22374). In the November 2011
proposal, we also explained that an auxiliary risk characterization
analysis, to assess the potential maximum individual lifetime cancer
risks in the event that all wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities
emitted at the level of the highest hexavalent chromium emitter,
indicated that if other facilities were to emit at that reasonable
highest measured level, emissions of hexavalent chromium could
potentially pose unacceptable risks to public health due to inhalation
exposures resulting from stack emissions of hexavalent chromium (76 FR
72801-80). We provided a detailed explanation on our decision to set
both PM and total chromium standards in the memorandum titled
``Technical Basis for Separate Chromium Emission Limits for Wool
Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces'', which is in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Comment: Two commenters predicted that the environmentally
beneficial use of recycled mixed and green glass (cullet), and the
businesses that provide it, will be adversely impacted by the chromium
limit. The commenters pointed out that in 2008-2011, member companies
used more than 5.4 billion pounds of recycled glass, and that they are
the largest user of mixed glass and the only large user of green glass.
These commenters surmise that some chromium may be emitted from cullet
when it is remelted in the furnace, and that companies may reduce their
use of green cullet to meet the chromium emission limits, an outcome
that the commenters see as undesirable. The commenters added that the
highest chromium emissions were measured from the furnace that also fed
the most green glass cullet as a fraction of total raw materials into
the furnace during the test period. One commenter noted that ``not all
chrome was retained in the glass (cullet),'' and that green glass
cullet ``can be a primary contributor of chrome emissions.''
Response: As discussed in an attachment to comments submitted on
the EPA's 2011 proposal, the wool fiberglass ``recipe'' uses alkali or
alkaline earth oxides, or boron oxide (borax) for its properties to
terminate chains and sheets of silicon and oxygen tetrahedral in the
glass melt.\16\ The result of this process is the formation of
macromolecules. These macromolecules are kinetically unable to
crystallize at low temperature and, as a result, essentially polymerize
the glass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Technology Review. Chromium Emissions from Wool Fiberglass
Melting Furnaces. Brosnan, Denis A. Ph.D., PE. Clemson University,
Clemson, SC February 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The comment attachment further explains that chromium enters the
glass in wool fiberglass furnaces below the glass line, and goes into
solution without having the potential for volatilization at glass-
melting temperatures.\17\ Chromium enters the silicate network
structure of the glass as a ``modifier'' of the network, and cannot
form glass on its own due to thermodynamic constraints. Chromium is
held ``rigidly'' in the silicate structure in interstices in the atomic
network, and is present in coordinated complexes with oxygen.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Chromium volatilization is only reported in the non-
equilibrium melting of glasses at plasma processing temperatures,
i.e., with flame temperatures typically reported as above 7,000
degrees Celsius (>12,000 degrees Fahrenheit). Brosnan, 2012.
\18\ C. Nelson, Transition Metal Ions in Glasses: Nework
Modifiers or Quasi-Molecular Complexes, Mat. Res. Bull. 18 (1983)
959-966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, based upon comments from industry, technical literature,
refractory product specifications, and other data, we conclude that the
chromium is not released from the cullet when it is melted, but from
the chromium refractories due to several influencing factors: The glass
chemistry, furnace temperatures, refractory wear rate and glass pull
rate. For more information regarding this topic, see memo titled
``Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions From Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting
Furnaces, June 2015'' in the docket to this rule.
However, we agree that the chemistry of the internal furnace
environment may be influenced when green glass cullet comprises most or
nearly all of the raw material mixture used in the furnace. This may be
due to reaction of submetallic oxides (boron) with the chromium oxide
of the refractory. As described in the comment attachment, ``the basics
of glass melting are well-known, with fluxes acting on silicon dioxide
or SiO2 to achieve a melted state that forms an amorphous
``network'' of atoms of oxygen and silicon with ``fluxing'' metals
resulting in rigid solids at room temperature.'' \19\ The attachment
concludes that, ``Below the glass line in mineral wool \20\ (sic)
furnaces, chromium from refractory corrosion enters the network
structure of the molten glass where it is held to the extent that it is
not volatile at the flame temperatures of batch temperature within
these furnaces. Therefore, volatilization from chromium refractories
within mineral fiberglass furnaces originates at or above the glass
line in the furnaces from the exposed refractory surfaces.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ W. David Kingery, H. Bowen, and D. Uhlmann, Introduction to
Ceramics (2nd Edition), Wiley (1976).
\20\ This report was attached to a comment to the November 25,
2011, Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing proposed RTR rule, and offers
the author's view on the technology review for wool fiberglass
furnaces. We conclude his use of the term `mineral wool' in this
context may have been either an error (the author advises on both
industries) or an inclusion of wool fiberglass as a sub-
classification under the overall classification (see NAICS codes) of
mineral wool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To summarize, according to the commenter, the minerals used to
color these glasses is not re-emitted from the cullet when it is melted
at the temperatures of wool fiberglass furnaces. According to the
commenter, studies show that in order to volatilize chromium from
glass, temperatures above 7,000 degrees Celsius (12,000 degrees
Fahrenheit) (such as occurs at plasma processing temperatures) are
required (Brosnan, 2012).
Therefore, we disagree with the commenter's assertion of the
mechanism of chromium emissions from the furnace, i.e., that chromium
is volatilized from green glass cullet when it is remelted in the wool
fiberglass furnace.
To the contrary, we maintain that chromium emissions are due to
chromium refractory products in wool fiberglass furnaces. According to
the literature and references, many of which were provided by the
commenter, chromium emissions increase from the wool fiberglass furnace
as a result of degradation of chromium refractories, which is
influenced by the thermochemical interactions within the furnace
environment. The rate of degradation of the chromium refractory in the
wool fiberglass furnace is influenced by the thermochemical
interactions which are influenced by the raw material mixture processed
in the furnace and the use of cullet (of any color).
We note that the test results upon which the final limits are based
include tests conducted while the furnace was processing cullet in the
raw material

[[Page 45307]]

mixture. While the technology basis for the final standard is more
frequent furnace rebuilds, wool fiberglass furnace operators may choose
among a variety of options, as explained in section III.D of the 2014
preamble. Commenters previously identified several options to meet the
final standard, including raw material substitution, i.e., reducing the
amount of cullet processed in the furnace. In addition to raw material
substitution, industry commenters included the furnace rebuild and
installation of a control technology at the outlet of the DESP as
potential chromium reduction measures.
Regarding the prediction of the commenters that negative
environmental impacts will result from the chromium limits because
green glass will be landfilled instead of remelted by the wool
fiberglass industry, we disagree for the following reasons. First,
glass recycling in the past was accomplished through the color
segregation of glass materials: Brown, or amber glass for amber
containers; clear, or ``flint'' for flint containers; and green glass
for green containers. Recycling centers no longer segregate their glass
by color, but instead separate recyclable materials according to type:
Paper, aluminum, steel, and glass, where glass of all colors is
combined together in a single stream. Therefore, we disagree with the
commenter that vast amounts of green glass would be landfilled because
glass recycling no longer segregates waste glass by color.
Second, we acknowledge that while mixed glass from single stream
recycling may be difficult to sell as a raw material, recyclers now
decolorize used glass for resale into all glass markets (container
glass in particular). One recycler (GMG) in particular shared a
description of their process: ``GMG's basic technology provides for the
de-colorization and subsequent recolorization of mixed color cullet in
the production of glass containers. In so doing, it allows the glass
manufacturer to use multiple colored cullet (amber, green, flint) to
produce a single color glass, matching rigorous color and
transmissivity standards required for many glass products. It
accomplishes this in a manner that allows the glass manufacturer to
replace virgin raw materials with a former waste product (mixed
cullet). GMG's Batch Formulation System (BFS) is a user-friendly
software program based upon a GMG proprietary series of algorithms
representing the full spectrum of furnace batch materials and their
chemistry. The BFS technology, combined with the optical scanning
equipment, enables the manufacturer to further increase savings through
the use of start-of-the-art optical scanner/feeder with advanced
software that instantaneously reports color distribution weights and
cullet chemistry in each batch sent to the furnace. Using these real
time reports on the incoming cullet stream, the furnace operator can
make formula modifications in chemicals and virgin materials to ensure
uniform colored glass production.''
Third, the wool fiberglass industry is one of several glass
industries, including mineral wool, container glass, pressed and blown
glass, and flat glass, that purchase glass cullet as an inexpensive and
energy efficient raw material. Therefore, we disagree that glass cullet
would necessarily be landfilled instead of used in one of any number of
glass industries.
Fourth, because chromium does not readily leach out of vitrified
materials such as glasses, and would not further pollute the
environment if disposed in a landfill, we believe that even if green
glass cullet were landfilled in some areas, that would not result in a
worse environmental impact than for chromium (particularly in its
hexavalent form, as is most of the chromium from wool fiberglass) to be
released into the air upon remelting.
Finally, according to the commenter, the use of cullet is required
by Executive Order, and wool fiberglass companies avail themselves of
cullet as a low-cost, energy efficient raw material which is also used
to increase wool fiberglass production rates due to the lower melting
temperature and eutectic point (as compared to all raw minerals). Wool
fiberglass manufacturers have stated that they would need to greatly
reduce or eliminate their use of cullet in the oxyfuel furnaces in
order to meet the proposed chromium limit (0.00006 lb/ton of glass
pulled), but that it is a moot point at the final chromium limit
(0.00025 lb/ton of glass pulled). During meetings held in December 2014
and March 2015, industry stated that reducing or eliminating the use of
cullet in the oxyfuel furnaces as a way to meet the chromium emission
limit was no longer a concern to them. Furthermore, use of cullet in
electric furnaces (which are not impacted by the chromium limit) does
not seem to increase emissions of chromium as it does in gas-fired
furnaces. Therefore, this is not an issue for electric furnaces, which
will continue to use cullet. Therefore, we disagree with the commenter
that cullet providers will be adversely affected by these final rules.
For the reasons stated above, we disagree with the commenter that
there are environmental impacts associated with glass recycling that
should be included in the impacts analysis. However, changing the
content and mixture of raw materials used in a process can be a viable
option for regulated sources to meet emissions limits.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
In our technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), for PM we
found that while the use of ESPs is not new to this industry, the use
of the DESPs in combination with gas-fired furnaces is more prevalent.
We found that, in general, baghouses are no longer used for gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces. We also found that all glass-melting furnaces
were achieving emissions reductions that were well below the existing
MACT standards regardless of the control technology in use.
Therefore, we determined that emissions controls on furnaces are
capable of reducing PM to levels below those in the MACT standard, and,
as previously proposed in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, we are
finalizing under CAA section 112(d)(6) the PM limit for new and
existing glass-melting furnaces.
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA provides that the agency must review
and revise ``as necessary'' existing MACT standards taking into
consideration developments in practices, processes and control
technologies by affected sources. The ``as necessary'' language must be
read in the context of the provision, which focuses on the review of
developments that have occurred in the industry since the time of the
original promulgation of the MACT standard. Thus, our technology review
was for all glass-melting furnaces located at both area and major
sources, since all area sources were originally major sources. As
explained in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, the number of area
sources is continually increasing as a result of the definition of
``wool fiberglass facility'' in 40 CFR 63, subpart NNN. For example in
2002, two out of 33 facilities were area sources, but by December 2012,
20 facilities were area sources (78 FR 22377). As also previously
explained, there are no differences between gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces used at major and area sources (78 FR 22377). Therefore, we
believe it was appropriate to consider all furnaces in our technology
review under CAA section 112(d)(6).
Based on public comments and test data, we found that the DESP
achieves an average of 97.5-percent efficiency in reducing PM, a
fraction of which is

[[Page 45308]]

chromium compounds. Test data indicate that the majority of this
chromium is in the hexavalent state, which is the most toxic form of
this pollutant. We concluded that, as earlier discussed, the mechanism
of formation, the increasing rate of emission release (due to
refractory degradation), and the pollutant toxicity warrant additional
investigation. Our technology review indicates that options effective
in reducing the chromium compound emissions from the furnaces are
available to wool fiberglass companies. We, therefore, conclude that it
is appropriate for us to set standards for the fraction of chromium in
the total PM that is still emitted from the DESP.
Based on comments we received on the November 2014 supplemental
proposal, we again reviewed the cost and control options and found
using new cost information that the limit as proposed was not as cost
effective as we initially believed. We reviewed the data to determine
whether a higher limit than previously proposed would be more cost
effective while still significantly reducing chromium emissions from
wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We found that most
wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces and all recently
rebuilt gas-fired furnaces currently emit chromium compounds at rates
below 0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled. Two furnaces
located at major sources, which together emit 583 pounds of chromium
compounds per year after DESP control, would still have to reduce
chromium emissions to meet the limit.
We compared the chromium emission reductions that would have
resulted under the previously proposed emission limit of 0.00006 pounds
chromium per ton of glass pulled to the reductions that result from the
final limit of 0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled. We
found that the proposed limit would have reduced chromium from major
sources by 567 pounds per year, and that the final limit reduces
chromium by 524 pounds per year. These are comparable and substantial
reductions in chromium due to two high-emitting furnaces at major
sources. Moreover, the final limit sets a backstop so that another
high-chromium-emitting, gas-fired glass-melting furnace cannot be
operated again at a major source in this industry.
We revised our technology review to reflect our conclusions on the
most cost-effective ways to meet the final chromium limit. We find that
two approaches are likely to be used by industry to reduce chromium
emissions from gas-fired furnaces. One approach is to rebuild the
furnace early (instead of a furnace life of 10 or more years, rebuild
the furnace after 7 years of service) at an annualized cost of $462,000
per year, and the other approach is to replace one raw material
(cullet) with another material (raw minerals), which the industry
stated would result in lower chromium emissions, at an average cost of
about $620,000 per year. Industry test data show that major sources
will reduce chromium emission by 524 pounds per year to meet the
0.00025 pounds chromium per ton of glass pulled limit. The cost
effectiveness of both approaches is reasonable, and the option to
rebuild the furnace has a cost effectiveness of approximately $880 per
pound of chromium, which appears for most companies to be the most
cost-effective option. This cost is extremely affordably compared to
costs for chromium control in other rules. For example, in the Chromium
Electroplating RTR (77 FR 58226, September 19, 2012), we accepted a
cost effectiveness of $11,000 per pound of hexavalent chromium reduced.
We also note that section 112(d) neither specifies nor mandates a cost
methodology. We note that in Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200
D.C. Cir. 2001), the DC Circuit Court found the EPA's chosen
methodology ``reasonable'' because the statute ``did not mandate a
specific method of cost analysis.''
Sources may choose a combination of these approaches to meet the
final chromium limit: Raw material substitution may be used as the
furnace begins to show refractory wear (and associated increase in
chromium emissions), and then, toward the end of the useful life of the
furnace, sources may choose to rebuild their process equipment. We
discuss the technology review in more detail in the November 2011 (76
FR 72803-72804) and the April 2013 (78 FR 22379-382) proposals; in the
``Technology Review Memorandum for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
NESHAP''; and in the paper titled, ``Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions
From Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting Furnaces,'' June 2015; which are
available in the docket to this rule.

C. MACT Standards for Pollutants Previously Regulated Under a Surrogate
and Previously Unregulated Pollutants for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources)

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources)?
In the November 2011 proposal, we proposed to establish emissions
limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from FA and RS
manufacturing lines that were previously regulated under a surrogate,
and previously unregulated HCl and HF from glass-melting furnaces. In
the April 2013 supplemental proposal, we retained the proposed emission
limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for FA and RS
manufacturing lines; however, we proposed work practice standards under
CAA section 112(h) for control of HF and HCl emissions from furnaces,
instead of the numeric emission limits in the November 2011 proposal
(see section V.D of this preamble). In the November 2014 supplemental
proposal, we proposed revised emissions limits for formaldehyde,
methanol, and phenol from RS and FA lines for new sources as a result
of our updated approach to evaluate limited datasets. The emission
limits for existing RS and FA lines in the November 2014 supplemental
proposal remained the same as in the April 2013 supplemental proposal
because the size of these datasets was sufficiently large that the
limits were not changed by the updated approach.
For the sake of simplicity, we discuss these pollutants together in
the following sections.
2. How did the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits
change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
We have not changed any aspect of the emission limits for
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol for existing and new FA
manufacturing lines since the November 2014 supplemental proposal.
However, as explained in section V.H of this preamble, we are deferring
evaluation of emissions limits for RS lines pending collection of new
process and emissions data from the industry.
3. What key comments did we receive on the formaldehyde, methanol, and
phenol emission limits, and what are our responses?
We received comments in support of and against our proposed
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits for FA lines. The
following is a summary of the key comments received

[[Page 45309]]

regarding the revised formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission
limits for FA lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category and our responses to these comments. Additional comments on
the standards and our responses can be found in the comment summary and
response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1042).
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA is changing
the applicability of the MACT standard for products made on FA
manufacturing lines, as the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22370,
April 15, 2013) indicated that the limits apply to all products
manufactured on an FA line, not only to pipe and heavy density
products. The commenter interpreted this to expand applicability of
MACT to lines not previously regulated, which is beyond the EPA's
authority under section 112 of the CAA. In the commenter's opinion, the
limits for FA lines should continue to apply only to pipe and heavy
density products, and not to any other product made on an FA line.
Response: The EPA changed the applicability of the MACT standard
for products made on FA manufacturing lines for two reasons. First, the
EPA determined under this rulemaking that the EPA established the 1999
MACT floor as no control (i.e., no limit was established) for
formaldehyde emissions from FA lines producing light density products
(new and existing), automotive products (new and existing), and heavy
density products (existing). As stated in the March 31, 1997, proposal
for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (61 FR 15230), we divided
FA lines into four subcategories: light density, automotive, heavy
density, and pipe products. In that proposal (61 FR 15239), we noted
that we did not establish emission limits for existing FA manufacturing
lines producing light-density, automotive or heavy-density products or
emission limits for new FA manufacturing lines producing light-density
or automotive products because the MACT floor was no control and
because the cost effectiveness of additional controls beyond the floor
was not reasonable. The DC Circuit Court explicitly rejected this
approach--establishing the MACT floor as no control--in both National
Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 633-34 and in Portland Cement
Association v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Therefore, the
EPA has both the authority and the obligation to change applicability
for FA lines to ensure that all sources of HAP are regulated.
Furthermore, we believe that the data for these facilities clearly
support the establishment of MACT floors that assure emissions
controls. The standards are based on data we received on tested FA
lines. The commenter did not provide additional test data or
information on ``any other product made on an FA line'' that would lead
us to change to the emission limits previously proposed for FA lines.
Second, in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, in response to
comments on our November 2011 proposal, and consistent with our intent
in the 2011 proposal, we stated that we were eliminating the
subcategories for FA bonded lines because we believe that the technical
or design differences that distinguished these subcategories in 1999 no
longer exist (78 FR 22387). We stated in the 2013 preamble that, as
part of rule development, industry provided test data that they claimed
were representative of products manufactured on FA lines (refer to
industry's May 10, 2010, letter to the EPA, available in the docket).
The 2011 and 2012 ICR response data indicate that only one company uses
FA processes to manufacture wool fiberglass products. This is the
company that provided the test data on which the limits for FA lines
are based. In comments, companies asked that the limits for FA lines
apply only to pipe and heavy density, and not to ``any other product
made on an FA line.'' However, no other companies provided additional
data that could serve as a basis for a change to the proposed limits
for FA lines for any other products being produced on FA lines. The
data provided by industry, therefore, indicate that this one company is
the only company engaged in manufacturing wool fiberglass products on
an FA line. Because test data exist for multiple products from this one
company reporting these activities, we disagree with the commenter that
the limits for FA lines should continue to apply only to pipe and heavy
density products, and we are finalizing limits developed for FA lines
that are representative of all product types made on FA lines.
Consistent with our 2013 supplemental proposal, we are establishing
standards at the MACT floor level of control for phenol, formaldehyde
and methanol emissions from FA bonded lines.
In 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court found that the EPA had erred in
establishing emissions standards for sources of HAP in the NESHAP for
Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing, 67 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003), and consequently vacated the
rules. (Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. March 13, 2007)).
Among other things, the Court found the EPA erred by failing to
regulate processes that emitted HAP. As required by CAA section 112, we
must establish emission limits for all processes that emit HAP based on
the information available to us. The data available to the EPA indicate
that FA lines producing products other than pipe and heavy density
products do emit HAP. Therefore, the EPA is obligated to set limits for
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for any such FA lines.
Comment: One commenter expressed concerns regarding the EPA's
proposed limits for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. Regarding the
2011 proposal, the commenter asked the EPA to consider the example of
one company whose compliance test data indicate that after switching to
a non-phenol/formaldehyde binder, the level of formaldehyde and
methanol for its RS line would exceed the 2011 proposed standard of
0.02 pounds per ton for formaldehyde for RS lines and the proposed
standard for methanol of 0.00067 pounds per ton for new and
reconstructed RS lines. According to the commenter, the data also
suggested that an RS line at an existing source using non-phenol/
formaldehyde binders would not meet the 2011 proposed formaldehyde
standard of 0.17 pounds per ton for RS lines. The commenter also
contended that the phenol limit of 0.0011 pounds per ton in the 2011
proposal for RS lines is so low that it cannot be measured with normal
test times or with the proposed method if the process is performing
close to the limit. The commenter concluded that the sources that
switch to non-phenol/formaldehyde binders would not be able to comply
with the proposed standards without installing controls such as a
thermal oxidizer, which suggested the proposed standards are
inappropriate. The commenter objected to the EPA's calculating the MACT
floor using data for RS lines using non-phenol/formaldehyde binders.
The commenter asserted that non-phenol/formaldehyde binder lines are
not representative of emissions in the affected units within the
industry, and non-phenol/formaldehyde binder lines should not be used
to set the MACT floor for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. The
commenter requested that the EPA confirm that all test data used to set
new and revised limits are based only on data from sources running a
bonded product, and to confirm that none of the test data used to set
the new and revised limits are based on data from sources

[[Page 45310]]

running a non-phenol/formaldehyde binder or unbonded product.
Regarding the 2013 supplemental proposal, the commenter maintained
that formaldehyde and methanol standards are not feasible for certain
RS lines without installing both non-phenol/formaldehyde binder and
additional controls such as thermal oxidizers, because of the
formaldehyde created through combustion of natural gas. The commenter
specifically mentioned the formaldehyde standard of 0.19 pounds per ton
for RS lines as being borderline achievable for non-phenol/formaldehyde
binders in RS lines for existing sources.
Regarding the 2014 supplemental proposal, the commenter indicated
that the level of formaldehyde and methanol emitted by RS lines would
exceed the 2014 proposed standard of 0.087 pounds per ton for
formaldehyde and the 2014 proposed standard for methanol of 0.61 pounds
per ton for new and reconstructed sources because of the formaldehyde
created through combustion of natural gas. The commenter added that the
data also suggest that the formaldehyde standard of 0.19 pounds per ton
is borderline passing for non-phenol/formaldehyde binder on some
existing sources. The commenter explained that formaldehyde is a by-
product of natural gas combustion from burners used in the process. The
commenter indicated that the proposed phenol limit of 0.26 pounds per
ton is greatly improved since the 2011 proposed limit, but that it is
still not consistently achievable. The commenter concluded that the
proposed standards may not be able to be achieved even after switching
to non-phenol/formaldehyde binders without installing controls such as
a thermal oxidizer, which themselves will emit additional formaldehyde
as a result of the combustion of natural gas to operate the control
device.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the data used to
calculate MACT for major sources must not include data for RS lines
that run a non-phenol/formaldehyde binder or unbonded product. As
discussed in the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22387), in response
to the comment on the 2011 proposed emission limits for RS lines, we
recalculated the emission limits after removing the emission test data
for RS lines using non-phenol/formaldehyde binders, and we re-proposed
emission limits for RS lines. However, based on this comment, we
determined that our proposed formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol limits
for RS lines may not accurately represent the average performance of
the best performing sources. In 2015, after considering further
information provided by industry representatives, we determined that
the limits proposed in 2014 for RS lines likely included RS lines using
non-phenol/formaldehyde binders and that the EPA could not determine
(based on the 2011 ICR data) which data represented manufacturing lines
that were using phenol/formaldehyde binders, and which data represented
manufacturing lines that were not using the phenol/formaldehyde binder.
As a result, we are not establishing in this final action RTR standards
for formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for RS manufacturing lines at
wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. We have issued an ICR under
section 114 of the CAA to collect updated emissions and process
information from the industry, and we will analyze the ICR data and
evaluate limits for RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities at a future date.
Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA should not recalculate
the MACT floor for formaldehyde emissions and that the current MACT
floor for formaldehyde emissions is still valid. The commenter
contended that the EPA should not set a MACT floor for formaldehyde for
the second time, explaining that (1) the EPA has not provided an
explanation or asserted any rational basis for choosing to calculate a
new MACT floor and standard for formaldehyde, as opposed to using its
discretion under CAA section 112(d)(6) to make an appropriate
adjustment without recalculating the floor and standard; and (2) there
is no basis under the technology review to recalculate a MACT floor.
The commenter stated that nothing in CAA section 112(d) suggests
that the EPA is required to establish a floor under CAA section
112(d)(3) more than once in issuing or revising MACT standards under
CAA section 112(d). The commenter pointed out that this proposal is not
consistent with other RTRs, for which the EPA has taken the position
that Congress did not intend EPA to establish MACT floors for a second
time when it revised a standard. The commenter provided the example of
the Coke Oven RTR rulemaking, in which the EPA stated its rationale for
CAA section 112(d)(6) not requiring additional floor determinations
because this would ``effectively convert existing source standards into
new source standards . . . The EPA sees no indication that section
112(d)(6) was intended to have this type of inexorable downward
ratcheting effect.'' The commenter further pointed out litigation
challenging the Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR rule, in which the DC
Circuit Court upheld the position that there should not be an
inexorable downward ratcheting effect for the MACT floors (NRDC v. EPA,
529 F.3d 1077, 1083-84 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). The commenter urged the EPA
to consider the statutorily-prescribed factors in recalculating the
MACT floor.
The commenter stated that the EPA is conducting a MACT on MACT
analysis by recalculating the MACT floor, citing NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d
1077, 1083-84 (D.C. Cir. 2008), where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit upheld the position that there should not be an inexorable
downward ratcheting effect for the MACT floors. The commenter agreed
that the EPA should calculate the floor for phenol and methanol, since
standards for these HAP were missing from the NESHAP.
The commenter urged the EPA to retain the 1999 formaldehyde limit,
saying that the 1999 limit is still the MACT floor and lowering the
limit would be ``beyond-the-floor'' and would need to be justified
accordingly. The commenter noted that in the proposal for the 1999 MACT
rule, the EPA found that the floor for FA lines making both heavy
density and pipe products was no control. The commenter observed that
the EPA had also considered controls beyond-the-floor at the time, but
concluded that the cost effectiveness was unreasonable. According to
the commenter, nothing has changed since this proposal for FA lines.
The commenter noted that because no new HAP controls have been added,
the floor is still no control for these products.
Response: The EPA does not agree that CAA section 112(d)(6)
provides the exclusive authority to address MACT standards when a MACT
determination has already been issued for the source category. The D.C.
Circuit Court has held that the EPA may permissibly amend improper MACT
determinations, including amendments to improperly promulgated floor
determinations, using its authority under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3). Medical Waste Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, 645 F.
3d 420, 425-27 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The absence of standards for these HAP
is not proper. National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 633-34;
see also Medical Waste Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. EPA,
645 F. 3d at 426 (resetting MACT floor, based on post-compliance data,
is permissible when originally-established floor was improperly
established, and permissibility of EPA's action does not turn on
whether the prior standard was remanded or vacated). Similarly, the
D.C. Circuit Court's December 9, 2011

[[Page 45311]]

decision in Portland Cement Association v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C.
Cir. 2011) confirms that CAA section 112(d)(6) does not constrain the
EPA and it may reassess its standards more often, including revising
existing floors if need be. The commenter is, thus, incorrect in
arguing that CAA section 112(d)(6) provides the exclusive authority to
address MACT standards when a MACT determination has already been
issued for the source category. Further, CAA section 112(d)(6) itself
provides that the agency must review and revise ``as necessary.'' The
``as necessary'' language must be read in the context of CAA section
112(d)(6), which focuses on the review of developments that have
occurred since the time of the original promulgation of the MACT
standard and, thus, can be used as an opportunity to correct flaws that
existed at the time of the original promulgation.
The EPA is amending the 1999 formaldehyde MACT floor for FA lines
because the floor was improperly determined. First, the EPA determined
under this rulemaking that the MACT floor for formaldehyde emissions
for new FA lines making heavy density products and for new and existing
FA lines making pipe products were set at the highest measured value
for each of the subcategories. As such, the 1999 MACT floor for
formaldehyde was improperly set at a level achievable by all sources
within the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and not at a
level defined by the CAA. Again, as explained in the November 2011
proposal, when the EPA had in the past (incorrectly) interpreted CAA
section 112(d) as requiring standards that can be achieved by all
sources, the D.C. Circuit Court has rejected that interpretation. ``EPA
may not deviate from section 7413(d)(3)'s requirement that floors
reflect what the best performers actually achieve by claiming that
floors must be achievable by all sources using MACT technology.''
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d at 861. ``EPA may not
deviate from section 7413(d)(3)'s requirement that floors reflect what
the best performers actually achieve by claiming that floors must be
achievable by all sources using MACT technology.'' Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d at 861 (``EPA cannot circumvent
Cement Kiln's holding that section 7412(d)(3) requires floors based on
the emission level actually achieved by the best performers (those with
the lowest emission levels), not the emission level achievable by all
sources, simply by redefining ``best performing'' to mean those sources
with emission levels achievable by all sources.'' Sierra Club v. EPA,
479 F. 3d at 881. (Emphasis in original). In revising the MACT floor
for formaldehyde, the EPA is ensuring that the floor reflects the
method established in CAA section 112(d) for establishing the MACT
floor for major sources of HAP: (1) For existing sources, MACT
standards must be at least as stringent as the average emissions
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing
sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the
best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30
sources, as is the case here; and (2) for new sources, the MACT
standards must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved
in practice by the best controlled similar source (CAA section
112(d)(3)).
Second, the EPA determined under this rulemaking that the EPA
established the MACT floor for the formaldehyde limits for FA lines
producing light density products (new and existing), automotive
products (new and existing), and heavy density products (existing) as
no control (i.e., no limit was established). Therefore, these sources
of HAP emissions are unregulated under the NESHAP, which is an approach
soundly rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court in both National Lime
Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 633-34 and in Portland Cement
Association v. EPA, 665 F.3d 177, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The EPA
disagrees with the commenter that the EPA should retain the current
MACT floor of ``no control'' and that the EPA's recalculating the floor
represents a level ``beyond the floor.'' Put another way, since the EPA
did not adopt a proper MACT standard initially, it is not amending a
MACT standard but adopting one for the first time. Consequently, the
EPA is not barred from making MACT floor determinations and issuing
MACT standards for formaldehyde pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3).
Third, the EPA is removing formaldehyde as a surrogate for phenol
and methanol emissions, as supported by the commenter. The EPA may
attribute characteristics of a subclass of substances to an entire
class of substances if doing so is scientifically reasonable.
Dithiocarbamate Task Force v. EPA, 98 F.3d 1394, 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
We no longer believe that there is a correlation and, therefore,
reasonable bases, between formaldehyde and phenol and methanol. Further
discussion of the EPA's rationale for removing formaldehyde as a
surrogate for phenol and methanol emissions is provided in the preamble
to the 2011 proposal (76 FR 72788, 72791, and 72796) for.
Regarding the comment that this proposal is not consistent with
other RTRs, we note that in several recent rulemakings we have chosen
to fix underlying defects in existing MACT standards under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3), provisions that directly govern the initial
promulgation of MACT standards (see National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum Refineries, October 28, 2009,
74 FR 55670; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading
Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; and the Printing and Publishing
Industry, April 21, 2011, 76 FR 22566). Regarding the comment that the
EPA had not provided an explanation or asserted any rational basis for
choosing to calculate a new MACT floor and standard for formaldehyde,
in our 2011 proposal, we explained that the D.C. Circuit Court had
found that we erred in establishing emissions standards for sources of
HAP in the NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing
and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, and, consequently, vacated the rule.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007). These errors
included incorrectly calculating MACT emissions limit, failure to set
emission limits and failure to regulated processes that emitted HAP. We
explained that we were taking action to correct similar errors in the
1999 Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP. We identified certain HAP
that we failed to establish standards for in these rules. We also
explained that we had not established standards for phenol and methanol
because they were represented by a surrogate (i.e., formaldehyde).
With regard to formaldehyde emissions from the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category, we explained we were proposing MACT
limits for existing, new, and reconstructed RS and FA manufacturing
lines and presented these limits in Tables 4-6 of the 2011 proposal (76
FR 72791). We also explained that we had a ``clear obligation to set
emissions standards for each listed HAP.'' National Lime Association v.
EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the formaldehyde,
methanol, and phenol emission limits?
As explained elsewhere in this preamble, we are eliminating the
subcategories for FA bonded lines because we believe that the technical
or

[[Page 45312]]

design differences that distinguished these subcategories when the
original rule was developed no longer exist (CAA section 112(d)(1)). We
are also establishing standards at the MACT floor level of control for
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions from FA bonded lines.
The data available to us at proposal were emissions test data from
various products within the heavy density products subcategory only,
and industry indicated that the test data for this subcategory were
representative of all products manufactured on FA bonded lines. Since
our various proposals, no additional source test data have been
provided to support continued subcategorization of FA lines. We,
therefore, concluded in the various proposals that the limits developed
for FA lines were representative of all products made on FA lines and
that further subcategorization was no longer supportable.
As also explained in our November 25, 2011 proposal, we examined
the 1999 MACT rule and found that it does not include emissions
standards for certain products manufactured on FA lines which do not
fall into the regulated subcategories ``pipe'' and ``heavy density.''
\21\ The EPA has a ``clear statutory obligation to set emission
standards for each listed HAP. Although Sierra Club v. EPA permits the
Agency to look at technological controls to set emissions standards, it
does not say that the EPA may avoid setting standards for HAP not
controlled with technology.'' National Lime Association v. EPA, 233
F.3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). In our
review, we found that the foundation supporting the 1999 MACT standard
for formaldehyde was developed incorrectly. Instead of being based upon
the emission limit achieved by the average of the best performing 12
percent of existing sources, it was set at a level that was achievable
by all existing sources. As explained in our November 25, 2011
proposal, this approach has been consistently rejected by the D.C.
Circuit. ``EPA may not deviate from section 7413(d)(3)'s requirement
that floors reflect what the best performers actually achieve by
claiming that floors must be achievable by all sources using MACT
technology.'' Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d at 861.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ We divided the FA lines into four subcategories: 1. Light
density, 2. automotive, 3. heavy density and 4. pipe products, but
set standards for only two subcategories--heavy density (new) and
pipe product (new and existing). We explained that ``[b]ecause no
controls are currently used, the MACT floor is no control and
because the cost effectiveness of additional controls beyond the
floor is not reasonable, the Agency is not setting emission limits
for existing FA manufacturing lines producing light-density,
automotive or heavy-density products or new FA manufacturing lines
producing light-density or automotive products.'' 61 FR 15239 (March
31, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the reasons provided above, as proposed in the November 2014
supplemental proposal and in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket, we are eliminating the subcategories for FA
lines and finalizing emissions limits at the MACT level of control for
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol, as shown in Table 3 of this
preamble.

D. Work Practice Standards for HCl and HF Emissions From Furnaces in
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major Sources)

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(h) for wool
fiberglass manufacturing (major sources)?
In our November 2011 proposal, we proposed emission limits for HF
and HCl from glass-melting furnaces. In our April 2013 supplemental
proposal, we proposed work practice standards in lieu of numeric
emission limits, under CAA section 112(h), in response to comments and
our evaluation of test data from industry regarding our November 2011
proposed limits. We explained that in response to comments on the
November 2011 proposed limits, we re-evaluated test data that we used
to calculate the MACT floor for the proposed HCl and HF standards and
found that most of the test data reflected values below the detection
limit of the test method. Specifically, over 80 percent of the test
results were values indicating that either HCl or HF, or both
pollutants, in the exhaust gas stream were below the detection limit of
the test methods. We, therefore, proposed work practice standards for
the control of HCl and HF emissions from furnaces. However, in the 2013
supplemental proposal we did not specifically identify the work
practice standards. In our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we
noted that the source of HF and HCl in furnace emissions was cullet
made from glass used in products such as cathode ray tubes (CRTs),
microwave ovens, televisions, computer screens, and other electronics.
Therefore, we proposed work practice standards that would require
owners and operators of wool fiberglass glass-melting furnaces to
ensure that the cullet did not contain glass from these types of
sources either by conducting their own internal inspection and
recordkeeping program, or by receiving certification from their cullet
suppliers.
2. How did the work practice standards change for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category since proposal?
In the November 2014 supplemental proposal, we explained the
proposed work practice standards for HF and HCl in the preamble, but
received comment that because the rule language did not accurately
reflect the preamble language, that it left to interpretation the other
sources of fluoride in the cullet (such as municipal water supply used
to wash cullet). We did not intend that interpretation, which would be
beyond the purposes of the NESHAP. In this final rule, we are
correcting that deficiency in the November 2014 supplemental proposal,
withdrawing that previously proposed rule language and specifying in
the rule text at 40 CFR 63.1382(a)(1)(iii) the correct requirements, as
previously proposed and as indicated above.
3. What key comments did we receive on the work practice standards, and
what are our responses?
We received comments in support of and against our work practice
standards for HCl and HF emissions from furnaces at wool fiberglass
facilities. The following is a summary of the key comments received
regarding the work practice standards and our responses to these
comments. Additional comments on the work practice standards and our
responses can be found in the comment summary and response document
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042).
Comment: One commenter objected to the EPA establishing work
practice standards for HCl and HF instead of numerical emission limits
without first establishing that ``measuring emission levels is
technologically or economically impracticable'' (Sierra Club v. EPA,
479 F.3d at 883-84) or that setting work practice standards ``is
consistent with the provisions of subsection (d) or (f).'' 42 U.S.C.
7412(h)(1). The commenter understands that 80 percent of emission tests
were below the detection limit, but contends that this fact
demonstrates that measuring emissions is difficult, not technologically
impracticable. The commenter argues that the EPA must explain why it
cannot use the 20 percent of the tests above that limit, taking the
detection level into account, to set appropriate emission limits.
Another commenter requested that the EPA remove all of these
sources from the calculation for the MACT floor because data that are
below the minimum detection limit (MDL) of the

[[Page 45313]]

test method (BDL) are unquantifiable and that using BDL data are likely
to set limits so stringent that the best performing sources cannot even
meet those limits. The commenter observed that the data for every
source in the MACT floor ranking is BDL; and the majority of HCl data
points are BDL. The commenter contended that facilities will have
difficulty showing compliance with an emission limit that is based on
data from testing that was BDL. The commenter cited a memorandum from
RMB Consulting about relying on BDL data.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. Memorandum, Comments on
Proposed EGU MACT Rule, July 19, 2011, p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the commenter, the EPA should only use values that are
above the MDL (i.e., actual values) in calculating the MACT floor, and
that the emissions floor must be determined by quantifiable data.
According to the commenter, in the Boiler MACT, the EPA reassessed the
proposed emission limits for dioxins/furans. The commenter noted that,
as explained by the EPA, a large amount of the emission measurement
used to set the dioxin/furan limits were below the level that could be
accurately measured.
Alternatively, the commenter stated that the EPA could propose a
work practice standard in order for facilities to show compliance.
Under the Boiler MACT, the commenter noted that the EPA chose to
regulate dioxins/furans by using a work practice standard. In that
case, the commenter stated that 55 percent of facilities tested had
dioxin/furan emissions below the MDL for EPA Method 23. The commenter
stated that a work practice standard would allow facilities to decrease
HCl and HF emissions and be able to show compliance.
In addition, the commenter stated that the EPA has made no effort
to take into account reductions achieved as a result of the original
MACT implementation as part of establishing the MACT floor. If a MACT
floor is calculated, the commenter contended that it must consider what
the emissions would have been at the time of the initial MACT
promulgation in establishing the floor.
Response: The EPA did not set any standard for HCl and HF in the
original 1999 MACT rule and is rectifying that deficiency (see National
Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 634) here by establishing
standards pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Sections
112(h)(1) and (2)(B) of the CAA indicate that the EPA may adopt a work
practice standard rather than a numeric standard when ``the application
of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not
practicable due to technological and economic limitations.'' We
evaluated test data that we originally used to calculate the MACT floor
limits for HCl and HF in response to comments such as this one.
Industry conducted testing in an attempt to obtain data for the acid
gases HF and HCl, under the terms of the voluntary survey. Emissions
tests were conducted over three 1-hour test runs, which is, for similar
industries, sufficient time to detect these acid gases when they are
emitted. However, we found that most of the test data reflected values
that were BDL. Specifically, over 80 percent of the test results were
values BDL for both HF and HCl, indicating that neither HF nor HCl are
present in measurable amounts in the exhaust gas stream for these
sources.
Because of the high percentage on non-detect test runs, we proposed
work practice standards for HF and HCl in our April 2013 supplemental
proposal. As explained in our April 2013 supplemental proposal, the EPA
regards situations where, as here, the majority of measurements are BDL
as being a situation where measurement is not ``technologically
practicable'' within the meaning of CAA section 112(h). The EPA also
believes that unreliable measurements raise issues of practicability,
feasibility and enforceability. The application of measurement
methodology in this situation would also not be ``practicable due to .
. . economic limitation'' within the meaning of CAA section 112(h)
because it would result in cost expended to produce analytically
suspect measurements (78 FR 22387).
As discussed in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78
FR 22387, April 15, 2013), under these circumstances, the EPA does not
believe that it is technologically and economically practicable to
measure HCl and HF emissions from this source category. ``[A]pplication
of measurement methodologies'' (CAA section 112(h)(2)(B)) means more
than taking a measurement. It must also mean that a measurement has
some reasonable relation to what the source is emitting (i.e., that the
measurement yields a meaningful value). That is not the case here and
the EPA does not believe it reasonable to establish numeric emission
limits for HCl and HF in this rule. Therefore, in the final rule, we
are promulgating work practice standards consistent with our April 2013
supplemental proposal.
However, we disagree with the comment that in revising or
promulgating MACT standards, the EPA may not use current test data
showing that sources may have achieved much lower emissions levels as a
result of complying with earlier standards. ``EPA acted lawfully, in
resetting the MACT floors based on post-compliance emissions data.''
Medical Waste Institute and Energy Recovery Council v. EPA, 645 F. 3d
420, 426-27 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In addition to the work practice
standards in the final rule, control of HCl and HF can also occur as a
``cobenefit'' of conventional control technologies that have been
installed for other purposes. These acid gases may be absorbed and
neutralized when a scrubber is present. We, thus, believe that the work
practice standards will result in the level of control of the
exceedingly small amounts of HCl and HF present in wool fiberglass
furnace emissions achieved by the best performing facilities in the
source category.
When testing for indications that a pollutant is emitted by a
source, if the results are below the detection limits of the method,
that means that the pollutant was not, in fact, detected. We do not set
emission limits for all 188 HAP on the list in CAA section 112(b), but
only for those that are emitted from the processes. We required sources
to test for HF and HCl, and most (over 80 percent) of sources did not
detect either of those HAP in their emissions streams. When this is the
case for over half the sources in the category, we believe it is not
appropriate to set numerical limits for such pollutants.
Comment: One commenter stated that glass cullet cannot be
guaranteed by providers or facilities to be ``free of chloride-,
fluoride-, and fluorine-bearing constituents,'' as we proposed because
(1) cullet must be cleaned before use and city supplied water contains
chloride and fluoride; (2) non-glass materials in cullet (including
coatings on the glass) contain fluorides or chlorides; (3) recycled
cullet currently used by the industry may contain trace amounts of
chlorides and fluorides; and (4) to meet product performance
requirements, certain glass formulations require glass fibers to
contain small levels of fluoride. The commenter argued that the
proposed requirement goes beyond what the industry is currently doing
to achieve HF and HCl emissions below the detection limit, and to
achieve the requirement, facilities would need to cease cullet use and
substitute with other materials.
The commenter recommended revising the rule to require facilities
to ``maintain internal documentation that work practices are in place
that

[[Page 45314]]

maintain low HF and HCl emissions,'' for 5 years, including but not
limited to the following options:

Record that cullet is reasonably consistent with previous
cullet used that has sustained low to non-detect HF and HCl
emissions; or
Monitor chloride and/or fluoride content of the cullet or
finished glass to verify and maintain insignificant trace levels of
emissions using standard chemical analytic techniques; or
Use feedstock of raw materials having a 12-month rolling
average of chloride content at or below 0.1 percent as measured once
a year using methods similar to ASTM 1152C/1152M or company-
developed methods; or
Maintain glass formulation records that show that no
ingredient contains intentionally added chloride; or
Maintain records from a sampling program, or obtain annual
certification from cullet providers verifying that the cullet does
not contain excessive CRT glass; or
Monitor fluoride content of the finished glass to verify
that the content is consistent with historic levels of similar glass
formulations; or
In lieu of work practices, measure HF and HCl emissions
during emission testing once every 5 years to confirm that the level
of HF and HCl emissions is not a statistically significant higher
level than the level measured for the furnace during the rulemaking
process.

The commenter also expressed support for the proposed requirement
that these records would be maintained for inspection by a permitting
authority.
Response: We acknowledge that municipal water can contain chloride
and fluoride; however, our prohibition on chlorides and fluorides
pertains to the cullet composition. In the final rule, we are revising
the proposed work practice standards for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category to address this comment. Specifically, we
are replacing the proposed requirement that cullet be ``free of
chloride-, fluoride-, and fluorine-bearing constituents'' with work
practice standards that require wool fiberglass facilities to maintain
records from either cullet suppliers or their internal inspections
showing that cullet is free of the following components that would form
HF or HCl in the furnace exhaust (i.e., chlorides, fluorides, and
fluorine): Glass from industrial (also known as continuous strand, or
textile) fiberglass, CRTs, computer monitors that include CRTs, and
glass from microwave ovens, televisions or other electronics. Wool
fiberglass facilities would ensure their feedstock does not contain
chloride-, fluoride-, or fluorine-bearing cullet by one of two
approaches: (1) Require the providers of external cullet to verify that
the cullet does not include waste glass from the chloride-, fluoride-
or fluorine-bearing sources mentioned above, or (2) Sample their raw
materials to show the cullet entering the furnace does not contain
glass from these types of sources. To demonstrate compliance,
facilities would maintain quality assurance records for raw materials
and/or records of glass formulations indicating the facility does not
process fluoride-, fluorine-, or chloride-bearing materials in their
furnaces, and that they thereby maintain low HF and HCl emissions.
Major source facilities would be required to make these records
available for inspection by the permitting authority upon demand.
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the work practice
standards?
The EPA may adopt a work practice standard rather than a numeric
standard when ``the application of measurement methodology to a
particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations.'' CAA sections 112(h)(1) and (2)(B). As
previously explained, in response to comments, we had re-evaluated test
data that we used to calculate the MACT floor for the proposed HCl and
HF standards in our November 2011 proposal, and found that most of the
test data reflected values below the detection limit of the test
method. Specifically, over 80 percent of the test results were values
indicating that both HCl and HF in the exhaust gas stream were below
the detection limit of the methods. We believe such values are not a
measurement of pollutants but rather an indication that such pollutants
are not present in measurable concentrations. The EPA regards
situations where, as here, the majority of measurements are below the
detection limit as being a situation where measurement is not
``technologically practicable'' within the meaning of CAA section
112(h). The EPA also believes that unreliable measurements raise issues
of practicability, feasibility and enforceability. The application of
measurement methodology in this situation would also not be
``practicable due to . . . economic limitation'' within the meaning of
CAA section 112(h) because it would result in cost expended to produce
analytically suspect measurements. Therefore, for the reasons provided
above, in the preambles for the 2013 and 2014 supplemental proposals,
and in the comment summary and response document available in the
docket, we are finalizing the work practice standards for HCl and HF
emissions from furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities
that are major sources.
As we explained in our November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR
68012 at 68023), in order to protect furnace components, wool
fiberglass facilities identify, isolate and screen out fluoride- and
chloride-bearing materials such as glass from industrial (also known as
continuous strand, or textile) fiberglass, CRTs, computer monitors that
include CRTs, glass from microwave ovens and glass from televisions.
The furnace emissions testing shows this is an effective work practice
to reduce emissions of these acid gases. HF and HCl emissions occur
when recycled glass from these types of materials enters the external
cullet stream from the recycling center.
Owners/operators have two options for work practice standards. The
first option is to require the providers of the external cullet to
verify that the cullet does not include waste glass from the chloride-,
fluoride, or fluorine-bearing sources mentioned above. The second
option is to sample the raw materials to show the cullet entering the
furnace does not contain glass from these types of sources.
We are finalizing work practice standards for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category that require wool fiberglass facilities
to maintain records from either cullet suppliers or their internal
inspections showing that the external cullet is free of components that
can form HF or HCl in the furnace exhaust (i.e., chlorides, fluorides
and fluorine). Facilities are required to maintain quality assurance
records for raw materials and/or records of glass formulations
indicating the facility does not process fluoride-, fluorine-, or
chloride-bearing materials in their furnaces, and that they thereby
maintain low HF and HCl emissions. Major source facilities are required
to make these records available for inspection by the permitting
authority upon demand. Failure to maintain such records constitutes a
violation from the requirement.

E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area Sources)

1. What SSM provisions did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category (major and area sources)?
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the DC Circuit Court vacated portions of

[[Page 45315]]

two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the
emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated
the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1),
holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or
limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously. We proposed eliminating the SSM exemption in the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing rules for major sources (40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNN). Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA proposed work
practice standards in these rules (both 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN and
the new 40 CFR part 63, subpart NN) for periods of startup and
shutdown. We proposed the incorporation of work practice standards at
startup and shutdown for major sources into the GACT standards for area
sources. This would mean that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area
sources would have to comply with an alternative compliance provision
for startup and shutdown that would require sources to keep records
showing that emissions were routed to the air pollution control devices
and that these control devices were operated at the parameters
established during the most recent performance test that showed
compliance with the applicable emission limits.
We also provided proposed regulatory text in the General Provisions
applicability tables in each subpart in several respects consistent
with vacatur of the SSM exemption. For example, we proposed eliminating
the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement in 40 CFR part
63, subpart NNN that the source develop an SSM plan. We also proposed
eliminating and revising certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that are related to the SSM exemption.
In our November 2014 supplemental proposal, we proposed that
affected sources comply with practices that are used by the best
performers in the source category (7968016).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category (major and area sources)?
We have not changed any aspect of the proposed SSM provisions for
40 CFR part 63, subparts NN and NNN since the 2014 supplemental
proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major and area sources), and
what are our responses?
We received comments for and against the proposed revisions to
remove the SSM exemptions for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category. The commenters who were against the proposed revisions did
not provide new information or a basis for the EPA to change the
proposed provisions and did not provide sufficient information to show
that facilities cannot comply with the work practice standards during
periods of startup and shutdown. The comments and our specific
responses to those comments can be found in the comment summary and
response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1042).
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions for the SSM provisions
for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major and area
sources)?
For the reasons provided above, in the preamble for the proposed
rules, and in the comment summary and response document available in
the docket, we have removed the SSM exemption from the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP for major and area sources; eliminated or revised
certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
eliminated SSM exemption; and removed or modified inappropriate,
unnecessary, or redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption.
We are, therefore, finalizing our proposed determination that
facilities comply with the work practice standards for periods of
startup and shutdown for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces in 40 CFR
part 63, subparts NN and NNN.

F. Other Changes Made to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP
(Major and Area Sources)

1. What other changes did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area sources)?
a. Electronic Reporting (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area
Sources)
As stated in the preamble to the November 2011 proposal, the EPA is
taking a step to increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and
data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and
operators of wool manufacturing facilities to submit electronic copies
of certain required performance test reports. See the discussion in
section III.G of this preamble for more detail.
b. Test Methods and Testing Frequency (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Major and Area Sources)
For both major and area sources, we are finalizing, as proposed,
the addition of EPA Method 29 for measuring the concentrations of
chromium.
For major sources only, we are finalizing requirements for methods
to measure PM, phenol, formaldehyde, and methanol. We are finalizing
the requirement, as proposed, to maintain the filter temperature at 248
25 degrees Fahrenheit when using Method 5 to measure PM
emissions from furnaces. We are also amending the NESHAP to allow
owners or operators to measure PM emissions from furnaces using either
EPA Method 5 or Method 29.
We are finalizing, as proposed, the addition of EPA Method 318 for
measuring the concentration of phenol and alternative test methods for
measuring the concentration of methanol (EPA Methods 318 or 308). We
are finalizing, as proposed, the replacement of a minimum sampling time
of 1 hour with the specification to collect 10 spectra when using EPA
Method 318. For Method 316, we are finalizing, as proposed, the
requirement to collect a minimum sampling volume of 2 dscm; however, we
are not finalizing the proposed minimum sampling run time for EPA
Method 316 of 2 hours. We are also finalizing editorial changes to the
performance testing and compliance procedures to specify formaldehyde,
methanol, phenol, and chromium; and compliance procedures for HF and
HCl.
Additionally, we are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement for
existing sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance
with the chromium emission limit for gas-fired furnaces no later than
July 31, 2017, and annually thereafter. We are also finalizing, as
proposed, the requirement for existing sources to conduct performance
tests to demonstrate compliance with the phenol, formaldehyde, and
methanol emissions limits for FA lines no later than July 31, 2017, and
every 5 years thereafter. We are finalizing the requirement for new
sources to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the
emissions limits no later than January 25, 2016 or 180 days after
initial startup, whichever is later. Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces
must demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limits annually
after the first compliance test, and whenever the amount of cullet
increases from that used in the most recent performance test

[[Page 45316]]

showing compliance with the standard, and all other processes must
demonstrate compliance with the other emission limits every 5 years
after the first successful compliance test.
c. Applicability and Compliance Period (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Major and Area Sources)
For major sources, we are clarifying, as proposed, that 40 CFR part
63, NNN applies to FA lines regardless of the product being
manufactured on the FA line and we are finalizing the compliance period
of 2 years for existing sources subject to the chromium, formaldehyde,
HCl, HF, phenol, PM, and methanol emission limits.
For area sources, we are finalizing, as proposed, the compliance
period of 2 years for existing sources subject to the chromium emission
limits.
d. Definitions (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area Sources)
In this action, we are finalizing, as proposed, definitions that
apply to both major and area sources. These include a definition for
``gas-fired glass-melting furnace'', revisions to the definition of
``new source'', and the notification requirements to update the
citation to the November 2011 proposal. We are finalizing, as proposed,
a definition for ``incinerator'' in 40 CFR part 63, NNN (major
sources).
e. Parameter Monitoring (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Major and Area
Sources)
For both major and area sources, we are finalizing, as proposed,
the monitoring requirements for furnaces to provide flexibility in
establishing appropriate monitoring parameters. We are also requiring
that facilities operating gas-fired furnaces maintain a 30-day rolling
average of the percentage of cullet used in the raw materials fed to
the furnace. To demonstrate compliance with this operating parameter,
owners or operators must record a daily average value of the percentage
of cullet used for each operating day and must include all of the daily
averages recorded during the previous 30 operating days in calculating
the rolling 30-day average.
For major sources only, we are also finalizing, as proposed, the
monitoring requirements for FA lines, to provide flexibility in
establishing appropriate monitoring parameters.
f. General Provisions Applicability Table (Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Major and Area Sources)
For major sources, we are also making minor corrections to the
citations in Table 1 (40 CFR part 63 General Provision applicability
table) to reflect the final amendments in this action, and the
revisions that have been made to the General Provisions since 1999.
For area sources, we are identifying the applicability of part 40
CFR part 63 General Provisions to subpart NN.
2. How did the provisions regarding these other changes to the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area sources) change since
proposal?
We have not made any changes to the proposed provisions for
electronic reporting; testing methods and frequency; applicability;
compliance period; definitions; or the General Provision applicability
table. However, we are revising the parameter monitoring standards of
40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN to require daily monitoring and recording
of the percentage of cullet used in the raw materials fed to gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces and calculation of a rolling 30-day average. The
parameter monitoring requirements for area sources regulated by subpart
NN reference the same requirements for major sources in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart NNN.
3. What key comments did we receive on the other changes to the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area sources), and what are
our responses?
We received several comments received regarding electronic
reporting; testing methods and frequency; applicability; compliance
period; parameter monitoring; definitions or revisions to the General
Provisions applicability table. The following is a summary of the key
comments received regarding the technology review and our responses to
these comments. Additional comments regarding these changes to the
NESHAP and our responses can be found in the comment summary and
response document available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1042).
Comment: For both the major (NNN) and the area (NN) source rules,
one commenter requested a one-time performance test, or alternatively a
5-year testing requirement for furnaces, instead of the proposed annual
performance tests, and asked that sources be allowed to test one
`representative' furnace instead of having to test every furnace
subject to the rule. The commenter contended that the EPA's rationale
that chromium emissions increase with age has no factual basis because
age is not a causative factor for increased chromium emissions. The
commenter also pointed out that annual testing is not consistent with
other MACT (the Hazardous Waste MACT requires testing every 5 years),
GACT, and NSPS standards, as well as state performance testing
requirements.
Response: In our April 2013 supplemental proposal (72 FR 22378),
the EPA proposed reduced testing requirements for sources with
emissions that are 75 percent or less of the proposed chromium limit.
Subsequent to that proposal, the EPA determined that this reduced
testing frequency would not provide sufficient information to determine
compliance with the rule for either the plant operator or the EPA
because chromium emissions increase with furnace age. Refer to the
EPA's memorandum ``Chromium Emissions and Furnace Age'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1042-0332) for a summary of the data and information that EPA used
to determine that furnace age causes and increase in chromium emissions
for gas-fired furnaces. Regarding the comment that there are some
federal and state regulations that require only initial testing, there
are also federal and state regulations that require annual testing
(e.g., Portland Cement NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL). Each
regulation establishes a testing frequency based on the particular
characteristics of the industry that will allow the EPA to ensure
compliance with the standards. We have determined that annual testing
is appropriate here because the data and the technical literature show
that a furnace's chromium emissions can increase over a period of a few
years. The wool fiberglass furnace refractory products degrade due to
the corrosive and erosive nature of the wool fiberglass furnace
environment. The wool fiberglass oxyfuel furnaces operate continuously
over the furnace campaign of 10-12 years, and, according to industry
statements, as the furnace ages, it loses an average of 20,000 pounds
annually from the refractory. The pattern of refractory erosion is
semi-spherical, and the exposed refractory surface area increases
exponentially because it is constantly being eroded in a curved 3-
dimensional surface pattern. This pattern of furnace refractory wear is
responsible for the exponential increase in chromium emissions from
wool fiberglass furnaces. For more information on the relationship
between

[[Page 45317]]

wool fiberglass furnace age and increasing chromium emissions, see the
paper ``Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions From Wool Fiberglass
Furnaces,'' June 2015, in the docket to this rule).
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's listing all gas-
fired furnaces for regulation under the area source rule for chromium
emissions, and asserted that for both the major source rule and the
area source rule, only certain gas-fired furnaces, oxyfuel furnaces,
should be regulated for emissions of chromium compounds. The commenter
suggested that the furnace type and design, not the chromium content of
furnace refractories, impacts chrome emissions, and only oxyfuel
furnaces have the specific design features associated with high
chromium emissions. The commenter listed the following factors as
responsible for oxyfuel furnaces emitting high hexavalent chromium:
Higher flame temperature, high bulk wall temperature (oxyfuel
temperatures peak at 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit; other gas furnaces peak
at 3,560 degrees Fahrenheit), more chrome refractory brick above glass
level, higher water vapor concentration, and an oxidizing atmosphere.
The commenter argued that some of the air-gas furnaces that are not
oxyfuel have lower surface temperature, and the surface temperature
above the glass line is the single most influential variable
influencing hexavalent chromium emissions, not the fuel type. In the
commenter's opinion, air-gas furnaces should not be regulated in the
area source rule alongside oxyfuel furnaces.
The commenter noted that one air-gas furnace was measured emitting
high levels of chromium compounds, pointing out that it is different
from other non-oxyfuel air-gas furnaces because it is not standard
construction and it was at the end of its life. The commenter also
added that furnace has now been shut down.
The commenter also indicated that, despite their potential for
increased chrome emissions, oxyfuel furnaces will continue to be used
for a number of important reasons, including environmental benefits:
(1) Oxyfuel furnaces reduce NOX and CO emissions because
they emit less of these pollutants than does combustion with air, and
some state and local regulations require reduced NOX
emissions; (2) oxyfuel firing reduces NOX emissions because
it does not introduce nitrogen from combustion air into the furnace;
(3) oxyfuel furnaces use less energy than air-gas furnaces by obviating
the need to heat nitrogen contained in ambient air and, thus, produce
less greenhouse gas emissions; and (4) oxyfuel firing also produces a
reduced volume of flue gases which lowers the gas velocity in the
furnace combustion zone and lowers the potential to entrain PM.
Response: We note that this is a comment addressing the furnace
technology of the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry, and as such
applies to both major sources (under NNN) and area sources (under NN).
This comment is addressed here as it first applies to major sources. We
note that the same principles apply to area sources in this source
category.
We disagree with the commenter that air-gas furnaces do not warrant
a chromium emission limit. Furnace emissions test data were collected
from all wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities to determine the
scope and extent of the area source rule limits. The data collected for
gas-fired furnaces show that oxyfuel furnaces, as the commenter
correctly points out, have the greatest potential to emit chromium
compounds, followed by air-gas furnaces. This is because both types of
gas-fired furnaces operate at elevated temperatures (exceeding 3,000
degrees Fahrenheit) at and above the level of the glass melt (well in
excess of the temperature required to liberate and oxidize chromium
compounds from the chromium refractory of the furnace vessel), are
heated with natural gas and air (air-gas) or natural gas and oxygen
(oxyfuel), and are constructed using chromium refractories that are
capable of resisting the corrosive and erosive wear inherent in wool
fiberglass furnace environment.
In addition, as the commenter acknowledged, one air-gas furnace
constructed using what the commenter described as a ``non-standard
design,'' measured chromium emissions at levels higher than most of the
oxyfuel furnaces that were tested. Additionally, according to industry
comments and the information we collected under the 2012 ICR, all the
oxyfuel furnaces in the source category are constructed using materials
similar in type and chromium content to those used to construct the
highest emitting oxyfuel furnace. There is nothing to prevent a similar
furnace from being constructed at any site. However, as required, we
set emissions limits based on the information available to us, and we
find that both oxyfuel furnaces and air-gas furnaces have greater
propensity than electric furnaces, by virtue of their construction,
design, and operating temperatures, to form and emit chromium
compounds.
As explained in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal,
these conditions (high temperatures, available chromium and corrosive
furnace gases) are factors that contribute to higher chromium emissions
at wool fiberglass furnaces. As stated by the commenter and by other
industry representatives, wool fiberglass companies intend to expand
their use of chromium refractories in furnace designs.
We disagree with the commenter's view that we should address
specific facilities only for this regulation. First, we note that
NESHAP are national rules that apply to source categories rather than
individual facilities, and while we do have the ability to
subcategorize by process size, type, or class, we cannot simply target
an individual facility or facilities. Second, nothing prevents an
oxyfuel or air-gas furnace similar to the high emitting furnaces to be
constructed at any existing or new wool fiberglass facility, and it is
incumbent upon the EPA to prevent the danger to public health that
would result from such a furnace being located at other sites. As the
commenter pointed out, ``Despite their potential for increased chrome
emissions, oxyfuel furnaces will continue to be used for a number of
important reasons . . ..'', and as discussed in our 2011 proposal, we
considered the resulting impact if the same furnace were to be
constructed at any other existing wool fiberglass manufacturing site.
As documented in our auxiliary risk characterization ``Draft Residual
Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Categories'' and ``Maximum Predicted HEM-3 Chronic
Risks (Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing) based on Revised--What If
Analysis,'' available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1042-0086 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042-0263, respectively), we found
that the CertainTeed facility in Athens, Georgia would have a risk of
400-in-1 million if it were to install a furnace similar to the high-
chromium emitting furnace at Kansas City; and that the Athens, GA
facility is now an area source that will be subject to the new area
source standard (having recently phased out the use of phenol/
formaldehyde on the bonded lines). While most wool fiberglass furnaces
at area sources currently emit chromium at levels well below the
proposed level of the chromium emission limits, the limits serve as a
backstop to prevent high emitters from emitting chromium compounds in
an uncontrolled manner.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the proposed changes
to Method 5 that reduced the testing temperature of the probe by 100
degrees to improve the accuracy of the method,

[[Page 45318]]

and whether this change will increase the potential for noncompliance
with the PM standard. Specifically, the commenter stated that ``what
once may have passed through the apparatus now may become filterable''
and, thus, be counted as PM because of the temperature difference.
Further, the commenter pointed out that the data used to establish MACT
for PM were collected at the higher temperature specified in 40 CFR
63.1385(a)(5) of subpart NNN.
Response: In the final regulation, we are requiring that owners or
operators conduct annual emissions tests for chromium, and to test for
PM emissions every 5 years. To reduce the testing burden on facilities,
the final rule specifies that owners or operators can measure PM
emissions from furnaces using either EPA Method 5 or Method 29.
Consequently, for the years when the facility must test for both
chromium and filterable PM emissions, owners or operators can use
Method 29 to obtain measurements for both chromium and filterable PM,
rather than having to use Methods 5 and 29 separately.
The 1999 NESHAP specified that owners or operators must use EPA
Method 5 with the filter temperature maintained at 350 25
degrees Fahrenheit during for the test. However, Method 29 refers to
the filter temperature specifications in Method 5 which requires that
the filter be maintained at 248 25 degrees Fahrenheit
during testing. To maintain consistency with Method 29, we are amending
the NESHAP to specify that owners or operators must maintain the filter
temperature at 248 25 degrees Fahrenheit when using Method
5 to measure filterable PM concentrations. We acknowledge that
maintaining the Method 5 filter at 248 25 degrees
Fahrenheit during testing has the potential capture to more PM than
would be captured at the higher filter temperature; however, we do not
believe that the change in filter temperature that we are specifying in
the final rule will result in wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities
being in noncompliance with the final PM standards. As noted in the
2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22383), the data submitted to EPA,
which includes filterable PM data collected using Method 29 and a
filter temperature operating at 248 25 degrees Fahrenheit,
show that all gas-fired glass-melting furnaces are currently meeting
the PM standard, as proposed, of 0.33 pounds of PM per ton of glass
pulled.
Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's proposal to reduce
testing frequency to every 3 years. Due to the past history of unknown
and unreported chromium emissions, innovation and changes within the
wool fiberglass industry, the potential for unpredictable changes in
chromium emissions, and the environmental justice impacts of the
industry, the commenter requested the EPA to increase the frequency and
quality of the monitoring and reporting requirements of the rules.
Response: The EPA is finalizing annual testing, and removing the
option proposed in 2013 to test every 3 years. The EPA agrees with the
commenter that annual testing is required due to the fact that emission
test data show that emissions can significantly increase with furnace
age. Refer to section III.D.4 of this preamble and to the 2014
supplemental proposal for further discussion about the EPA's rationale
for requiring annual testing.
4. What is the rationale for our final decisions regarding these other
changes to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (major and area
sources)?
For the reasons provided above and in the preamble for the proposed
rule, we are finalizing the proposed provisions regarding electronic
reporting; testing methods and frequency; applicability; compliance
period; parameter monitoring; definitions; and the General Provision
applicability table.

VII. What is included in the final Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Rule
for area sources?

A. Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) Analysis for Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources

We are finalizing, as described in this final action, the chromium
emission limits for both new and existing gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces at area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category (see Table 4 in section V.E of this preamble).
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (d)(5)
for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
We initially proposed GACT standards for area sources in the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category on April 15, 2013 (78 FR
22377). In that proposal, we proposed emission limits for chromium
(0.00006 pounds per ton of glass pulled) and PM (0.33 pounds per ton of
glass pulled) for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources. To
maintain consistency with the major source rule, we proposed that
facilities use the same requirements for PM and chromium test methods
and monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping specified in 40 CFR part
63, subpart NNN. We also proposed to include an affirmative defense to
civil penalties for violations of emission limits that are caused by
malfunctions. In the 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68024), we
proposed removal of the PM emission limit based on public comments the
EPA received asserting that setting both PM and chromium limits was not
necessary. We reviewed the technologies and emissions test data for
controls that are in place at wool fiberglass furnaces. In some test
reports, we had both inlet and outlet measurements of both PM and
chromium. From these tests we saw that, in order for furnaces to meet
the chromium limit, they would have to control PM, a fraction of which
is chromium compounds. Because chromium is the specific pollutant of
concern from the furnace process, and because under the Strategy we may
either address pollutants of concern through an appropriate surrogate,
or directly regulate the pollutant of concern, we are setting emission
limits only for chromium from area sources. However, affected sources
will still need to achieve PM reductions in order to meet the chromium
limit. The PM controls in place at gas-fired glass-melting furnaces
achieve an average efficiency of 98 percent. PM in the furnace exhaust
includes chromium, and due to the high production rate of the
continuous furnace process, this can be a significant amount of
chromium emitted during the course of a year. Source testing conducted
on two wool fiberglass furnaces at one facility \23\ measured chromium
at both the inlet and the outlet of the DESP. This test showed chromium
entering the DESP averaged 1,500 pounds per year. Both PM and chromium
were measured at the outlet of the DESP: Emissions of PM averaged 1.5
tons per year, and emissions of chromium averaged 11.4 pounds per year.
This indicates to us that if sources attempted to remove their PM
controls they would not be able to meet the chromium limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Testing was conducted at the Certainteed, Inc. facility in
Mountaintop, PA in December 1991, October 1995, and during several
tests conducted during the 1998-1999 time period for the state
compliance reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 2014 supplemental proposal, we also withdrew our proposal to
include an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of
emission limits that are caused by malfunctions (79 FR 68015).

[[Page 45319]]

2. How did the GACT analysis change for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
area sources?
In response to comments on our proposed chromium compounds limits,
and as discussed in section VI.A of this preamble, we are finalizing a
chromium compounds emission limit for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces
for major sources at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities of
0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. Consistent with our November
2014 supplemental proposal, we are not finalizing a PM emissions limit
for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources.
Based on comments we received in response to the November 2014
supplemental proposal, we again reviewed the cost and control options
and found using new cost information that the limit as proposed was not
as cost effective as we initially believed. We determined that it was
appropriate to modify the proposed limit of 0.00006 pounds per ton of
glass pulled because the cost effectiveness for the emission reduction
option was $660,000 per pound of chromium reduced for the raw material
substitution option, and $620,000 per pound chromium reduced for the
furnace rebuild option. We believe these costs are not reasonable
compared to other cases where the EPA has regulated highly toxic
pollutants, such as hexavalent chromium. We, therefore, reviewed the
data to determine whether a higher limit than previously proposed would
be more cost effective while still significantly reducing chromium
emissions from wool fiberglass gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. We
found that all gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at wool
fiberglass area sources currently emit chromium compounds at rates
below 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. These area sources
together emit 18 pounds of chromium compounds annually.
We compared the chromium emission reductions that would have
resulted under the previously proposed emission limit of 0.00006 pounds
per ton of glass pulled to the reductions that result from the final
limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled. The limit of 0.00006
pounds per ton of glass pulled would have resulted in a chromium
emissions reduction of 8.5 pounds per year at area sources. The final
limit of 0.00025 pounds per ton of glass pulled does not result in any
chromium emissions reductions. This is due to the overall low emissions
of chromium at area sources based on the most recent test data. The
furnaces at area sources are mostly new furnaces of advanced design.
While immediate emission reductions would not be realized, this final
limit sets a backstop so that another high-chromium-emitting, gas-fired
glass-melting furnace cannot be operated at an area source in this
industry. This is important for this industry because certain furnaces
have been shown to emit increasing amounts of chromium as their high-
chromium refractory lining begins to degrade.
We revised our GACT analysis as two approaches could be used by
industry to reduce chromium emissions from gas-fired furnaces. One
approach is to rebuild the furnace at an annualized cost of $462,000
per year per furnace, and the other is to replace one raw material
(cullet) with another material (raw minerals), which the industry
stated would result in lower chromium emissions, at an average cost of
about $1.3 million per year, depending on the production rate of each
area source facility. Industry test data show that area sources will
need to maintain their currently low levels of chromium emissions to
meet the 0.00025 pounds per ton limit.
Further, in evaluating available technology at area sources, we
also considered the furnace technology for gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces in use at major sources. Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may
set the GACT emission limit for area sources that provides for the use
of generally available control technologies to reduce HAP, and we are
not precluded from setting the limits for area sources equivalent to
the limits for major sources. In this instance, as previously
explained, there are no differences between gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces in use at area and major sources. Moreover, major sources
become area sources only by virtue of eliminating formaldehyde from
their processes. Therefore, we believe that the control measure for
reducing chromium emissions (i.e., furnace rebuild) used by major
sources is generally available for area sources, and we are finalizing
the same emission limit of 0.00025 pounds total chromium per ton of
glass pulled for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources,
under CAA section 112(d)(5).
3. What key comments did we receive on the GACT analysis for Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources, and what are our responses?
We received comments in support of and against our GACT analyses.
The following is a summary of the key comments received regarding the
GACT analysis for area sources in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category and our responses to these comments. Additional
comments on the risk assessment and our responses can be found in the
comment summary and response document available in the docket for this
action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042).
Comment: One commenter asserted that the EPA has not met procedural
requirements necessary to regulate area sources under CAA section 112.
The commenter contended that the EPA does not have the authority to
list or regulate area sources under CAA section 112 unless the agency
first finds that the source category presents a threat of adverse
effects to human health or the environment. The commenter argued that
the EPA's own risk assessment indicates ``risks due to hexavalent
chromium and formaldehyde are acceptable.'' In the commenter's opinion
``all the EPA has done is claim that: (1) Because area sources, like
major sources, contribute chromium compounds, and (2) because many
sources that once were major sources have since become area sources, it
follows that area sources should also be regulated.'' Further, the
commenter stated that the EPA, in listing area sources, has not
complied with section 307 of the CAA, which requires the EPA to provide
to the public a summary of the basis for its decision to list the wool
fiberglass industry as an area source (i.e., factual data underlying
the decision, methodology used in obtaining data, and the major legal
interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposal). The
commenter also argued that section 553 of the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA) mandates a ``notice and comment'' period for the EPA's
decision to list this industry as an area source due to an ``adverse
effects'' finding, to give stakeholders an opportunity to comment on
findings that form the basis of the proposed rulemaking.
Response: In section II.D of the preamble to our 2013 supplemental
proposal (78 FR 22375, April 15, 2013), we presented the legal basis
for our decision to add gas-fired glass-melting furnaces to the list of
area source categories to be regulated. Sections 112(c) and 112(k) of
the CAA require the EPA to identify and list the area source categories
that represent not less than 90 percent of the emissions of the 30
urban air toxics associated with area sources and subject them to
standards under the CAA section 112(d). Specifically, sections
112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B)(ii) of the CAA require the EPA to list area
sources representing 90 percent or more of emissions of the 30 urban
HAP regardless of whether the EPA has

[[Page 45320]]

issued an adverse effects finding for each individual area source
category that contributes to achieving the 90 percent emissions goal.
As documented in the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78
FR 22375, April 15, 2013) and in the memorandum ``Technical
Memorandum--Emission Standards for Meeting the 90 Percent Requirement
under Section 112(c)(3) and Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act''
(February 18, 2011; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042-0262), the EPA has achieved
the 90 percent reduction of national chromium emissions required by the
Strategy; however, as further stated in the 2013 supplemental proposal,
nothing in the CAA prevents the agency from going beyond the statutory
minimum of 90 percent, especially if generally available control
technology for the source category is available at a reasonable cost.
Indeed, to date, we have established emission standards for sources
accounting for almost 100 percent of area source emissions of certain
urban HAP (e.g., 99 percent of arsenic and beryllium compound
emissions).
Regarding the commenter's opinion that the reason the EPA is
regulating gas-fired glass-melting furnaces as area sources is that
these sources were once regulated under the NESHAP and that they are
similar to major sources, the EPA did discuss these facts in the
preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22382, April 15,
2013). These facts serve to inform the EPA's understanding of this area
source category, but they are not the reason the EPA is regulating
these area sources. The EPA is regulating gas-fired furnaces located at
area sources to comply with the Strategy to address the annual
emissions of chromium from these sources, as the EPA explained in the
preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22375, April 15,
2013). In doing so, the EPA is addressing the high levels of chromium
emissions, in particular hexavalent chromium emissions. As explained in
the 2013 supplemental proposal preamble, gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces in this source category have the potential to emit high
emissions of chromium and to experience emission increases in the
future:

``. . . we have determined that gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at
wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities can emit higher levels of
metal HAP, and also higher than expected levels of chromium than
electric glass-melting furnaces. This is due to the use of high
chromium refractories above the glass melt line, and use of these
refractories is essential to obtain the desired glass-melting
furnace life. Also, the industry has indicated that the current
trend is to replace air-gas glass-melting furnaces with oxyfuel
glass-melting furnaces. Oxyfuel glass-melting furnaces have the
highest potential for elevated chromium emissions as discussed
further in section IV.A of this preamble. Accordingly, we believe it
is appropriate to add gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are located at area sources
to the list of area sources regulated in the Urban Air Toxics
Program.'' (78 FR 22377, April 15, 2013)

Based on the chromium emissions data for gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces in the source category available to the EPA, we have
established that emissions for a furnace can vary according to its
type, design, operation, and age. The EPA provided an example in the
preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal of such variability for the
CertainTeed's Kansas City facility, the highest-emitting glass-melting
furnace, for which chromium emissions (93 percent of which were in the
hexavalent state) increased from 5 pounds per year to 540 pounds per
year over a period of 7 years (78 FR 22381). These facts demonstrate
the current and potential future high levels of chromium emitted from
area sources. Further, the EPA has clearly indicated the high level of
health risk associated with chromium emissions. In the preamble to the
2013 supplemental proposal, the EPA stated ``Hexavalent chromium
inhalation is associated with lung cancer, and EPA has classified it as
a Class A known human carcinogen, per EPA's classification system for
the characterization of the overall weight of evidence for
carcinogenicity'' (78 FR 22374, April 15, 2013).
Regarding the comment that the EPA has not complied with section
307 of the CAA because it has not provided to the public a summary of
the basis for its decision to list gas-fired glass-melting furnaces as
area sources (i.e., factual data underlying the decision, methodology
used in obtaining data, and the major legal interpretations and policy
considerations underlying the proposal), the EPA disagrees. We stated
our intention in our 2013 supplemental proposal to exceed the 90
percent threshold for chromium emissions under the Strategy by listing
gas-fired glass-melting furnaces at area sources (78 FR 22376, April
15, 2013), and we made clear our intent to regulate chromium due to the
toxicity of the substance (78 FR 22374, April 15, 2013). We did not
conduct a health assessment and finding for chromium from this area
source category because we are not obligated to do so under sections
112(c)(3), (d)(5), or (k) of the CAA. For example, in our notice of
revision to the area source category list in 2002 (67 FR 70427,
November 22, 2002), we listed 23 new source categories as area sources
to meet or exceed the 90 percent threshold for all 30 HAP addressed by
the Strategy, and the document included no risk-based rationale for
listing each source category that exceeded the 90 percent target.
Further, regarding the comment that the EPA has not complied with
APA section 553 and section 307 of the CAA, we described our
methodology for collecting these emissions data, as described in
section II.E of the 2013 supplemental proposal preamble (78 FR 22376,
April 15, 2013), and provided an opportunity for comment following that
supplemental proposal. Regarding the legal basis for our listing area
sources in section II.D, we presented this information in section II.E
of the preamble to the 2013 supplemental proposal (78 FR 22376, April
15, 2013) in compliance with section 307.
Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed regulation of area
sources because it is inappropriate and unjustified for the EPA to draw
firm conclusions at this time about the need to regulate area sources,
in particular regarding a threat of adverse effects to human health
from area sources. The commenter contended that the EPA's assessment of
chromium emissions from the major source category in the 2011 proposal
was fundamentally flawed and did not support the 2011 proposal, and
that the EPA admitted in the 2011 proposal preamble that it must
collect more information before drawing a conclusion regarding the wool
fiberglass area source category and ``a threat of adverse effects to
human health or the environment.'' The commenter argued that both of
these facts reflect on the EPA's readiness to regulate area sources.
The commenter further observed that the EPA may regulate a category of
area sources only after making a finding under CAA section 112(c)(3)
that HAP emissions from such source category present ``a threat of
adverse effects to human health or the environment'' that warrant
regulation.
Another commenter objected to the proposed regulation of area
sources, given the limited value such a rule would provide. The
commenter stated that the majority of wool fiberglass manufacturers are
no longer major sources, observing that the most significant change
since 1999 is the voluntary substitution of phenol/formaldehyde binders
with non-phenol/formaldehyde binders, resulting in reduction in HAP
emissions from this industry of the chief HAP regulated by the Wool
Fiberglass MACT Standard.

[[Page 45321]]

The commenter suggested that the health risk arising from the
production of wool fiber glass insulation products has been
significantly and sufficiently reduced and that any remaining residual
risk does not justify subjecting the industry to additional regulatory
requirements in the form of an area source standard.
Response: As described in the preamble to the April 2013
supplemental proposal (78 FR 22379), the EPA conducted a CAA section
114 survey to collect additional test data on chromium emissions from
glass-melting furnaces, so that the EPA would have test data for all
glass-melting furnaces. The area source standards proposed in 2013 and
being finalized in this rulemaking are based on this complete set of
emission data. Regarding the comments that there is insufficient health
risk to warrant regulation of area sources and that the EPA is required
to establish a ``threat of adverse health effects'' to regulate area
sources, as noted in the comment above, the legal basis for our
decision to add gas-fired glass-melting furnaces to the list of area
source categories to be regulated is based on sections 112(c) and
112(k) of the CAA which require the EPA to identify and list the area
source categories that represent not less than 90 percent of the
emissions of the 30 urban air toxics associated with area sources and
subject them to standards under the CAA section 112(d), and is not
based on CAA section 112(c)(3).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the GACT analysis
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources?
Because of the considerations discussed above in this preamble, as
well as in the preamble for the November 2014 supplemental proposal and
in the comment summary and response document available in the docket
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042), we are finalizing revised GACT standards.

B. What are the final requirements for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing area sources?

In this action, we are revising the proposed chromium emission
limit for gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces from 0.00006 to 0.00025
pounds of total chromium per ton of glass pulled, based on our re-
assessment of emissions data for newly-rebuilt furnaces (see section
VI.A.2 of this preamble for a discussion of the basis of the revised
emission limit for chromium compounds). We are also requiring that
facilities at both major and area sources establish the materials mix,
including the percentages of raw minerals and cullet used in gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces during the performance test conducted to
demonstrate compliance with the chromium emission limit. The source
must maintain the percentage of cullet in the raw material mixture at
or below the level established during the most recent performance test
showing compliance with the standard. If the gas-fired glass-melting
furnace uses 100-percent cullet during the performance test and is in
compliance with the chromium emissions limit, then the source is not
required to monitor cullet usage. Other requirements for Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources, including startup and shutdown,
compliance dates, test methods, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting are the same requirements as those specified for major source
facilities in 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN. Therefore, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart NN cites 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, for these requirements.

C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards for
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources?

The GACT standards for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located at
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources being promulgated in this
action are effective on July 29, 2015. The compliance date for existing
sources is July 31, 2017. New sources must comply with the all of the
standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, July 29,
2015, or upon initial startup, whichever is later.
The effective and compliance dates finalized in this action are
consistent with the dates we presented in the 2014 supplemental
proposal.

D. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing area sources?

The requirements for electronic reporting of performance test data
for wool fiberglass manufacturing area sources are the same as the
requirements for the mineral wool production source category. See
section III.G of this preamble for a description of the requirements.

VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category
We estimate that there are eight mineral wool facilities that are
major sources and, therefore, would be subject to the final NESHAP
provisions.
2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area
Sources)
We estimate that there are 30 facilities in this source category
(10 major sources and 20 area sources). Based on the responses to the
CAA section 114 ICR, we believe that two of the 10 wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities that are major sources would rebuild two
furnaces before the end of their operational lifecycles. We believe
that all furnaces at area sources can comply with the final chromium
emission limit without rebuilding before the end of their operational
lifecycles.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category
Emissions of HAP from mineral wool production facilities have
declined over the last decade as a result of federal and state rules
and the industry's own initiatives. The amendments we are finalizing in
this action would maintain COS, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol
emissions at their current low levels.
2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area
Sources)
We expect that these final RTR amendments would result in
reductions of 524 pounds of chromium compounds, 490 pounds of which is
in the hexavalent form. Available information indicates that all
affected facilities will be able to comply with the final work practice
standards for HF and HCl without additional controls, and that there
will be no measurable reduction in emissions of these gases.
Also, we anticipate that there will be continued reductions in PM
emissions due to these final PM standards, which all sources currently
are meeting due to the use of well-performing PM controls. Industry
comments, statements, and sources in the technical literature indicate
that as sources of industrial oxygen become available in areas
proximate to wool fiberglass facilities, such sources will convert
their existing furnaces to oxyfuel technology. As described in the
``Mechanisms of Chromium Emissions From Wool Fiberglass Glass-Melting
Furnaces,'' June 2015, PM emissions are greatly reduced compared to
electric furnaces and air-gas furnace technology.
Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will
result from the increased electricity usage

[[Page 45322]]

associated with the operation of control devices. We do not anticipate
significant secondary impacts from the final amendments to the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing MACT.

C. What are the cost impacts?

1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category
All lines currently in operation can meet the emission limits
finalized in this action without installing new control equipment or
using different input materials. The total annualized costs for these
final amendments are estimated at $48,800 (2013 dollars) for additional
testing and monitoring.
2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area
Sources)
The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the
ability of each facility to meet the final emissions limits for PM,
chromium compounds, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol. The memorandum,
``Cost Impacts of the Final NESHAP RTR Amendments for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category,'' includes a complete
description of the cost estimate methods used for this analysis and is
available in the docket.
There are a total of eight gas-fired glass-melting furnaces located
at five major source facilities. Compliance testing is $10,000 per
furnace, resulting in total testing costs for glass-melting furnaces of
$80,000. At this time, there are two facilities with a total of two
gas-fired glass-melting furnaces that do not meet the final emissions
limit for chromium compounds. We anticipate that these facilities would
opt to reduce the operational lifecycle for both of the gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces.
Based on the public comments and information received in response
to November 2014 supplemental proposal, we revised our cost estimate
from reducing the operational furnace lifecycle (from 10 to 7 years),
to a cost estimate for rebuilding gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. In
this cost estimate, we included the cost of transferring production to
another facility while the furnace is being rebuilt.
For major sources, the estimated capital cost of rebuilding the
furnace is $10.7 million per furnace with a total annualized cost of
$462,000 per furnace.
Two major source facilities operate 13 FA manufacturing lines, and,
therefore, would incur testing costs (annualized cost of $10,400 in
2013 dollars). The total annualized costs for the final amendments to
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP for major sources are
estimated at $1.01 million (2013 dollars).
Of the 20 area source facilities, five facilities operate a total
of eight gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. Under these final
amendments, none of the area source wool fiberglass facilities will
incur any capital costs to comply with the final chromium compounds
emissions limit. Five area source facilities would be subject to new
costs for compliance testing on gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, which
will total $80,000 annually (2013 dollars).

D. What are the economic impacts?

1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category
As noted in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68025),
we performed an economic impact analysis for mineral wool consumers and
producers nationally. The impacts to producers affected by this final
rule are annualized costs of less than 0.01 percent of their revenues,
using 2013 year revenue data to be consistent with the cost year for
our analysis. Prices and output for mineral wool products should
increase by no more than the impact of cost to revenues for producers;
thus, mineral wool prices should increase by less than 0.01 percent.
Hence, the overall economic impact of this final rule would be
negligible to the affected industries and their consumers. For more
information, please refer to the ``Economic Impact and Small Business
Analysis'' for this final rulemaking that is in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1042).
2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area
Sources)
We performed an economic impact analysis for wool fiberglass
consumers and producers nationally, using the annual compliance costs
estimated for both the RTR and area source final rules. The impacts to
producers affected by this final rule are annualized costs of less than
0.01 percent of their revenues, using 2013 revenue data to be
consistent with the cost year for our analysis. Prices and output for
wool fiberglass products should increase by no more than the impact on
cost to revenues for producers; thus, wool fiberglass prices should
increase by less than 0.01 percent. Hence, the overall economic impact
of this final rule would be negligible on the affected industries and
their consumers. For more information, please refer to the ``Economic
Impact and Small Business Analysis'' for this final rulemaking that is
in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042).

E. What are the benefits?

1. Mineral Wool Production Source Category
The amendments we are finalizing in this action will maintain the
reductions in COS, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions that
the industry has achieved over time at their currently low levels.
2. Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category (Major and Area
Sources)
We estimate that this action will achieve HAP emissions reduction
of 524 pounds per year of chromium compounds from the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category. The final standards will result in
significant reductions in the actual and MACT-allowable emissions of
chromium compounds and will reduce the actual and potential cancer
risks and non-cancer health effects due to emissions of chromium
compounds from this source category.
In the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68026), we
estimated that the proposed emission limits for FA and RS manufacturing
lines would reduce organic HAP emissions by 123 tons per year. Based on
the available data, we believe that all FA lines currently meet the
final emission limits; therefore, all of the emission reductions of
organic HAP presented in the 2014 supplemental proposal were attributed
to RS lines. As discussed in section V.H of this preamble, we are not
establishing emission limits for RS manufacturing lines in this final
action. Consequently, the emissions limits for formaldehyde, methanol,
and phenol finalized in this action do not achieve reductions of
organic HAP; however, the emission limits codify the reductions in
organic HAP from FA lines that have been achieved by the industry since
the 1999 NESHAP was promulgated. We have issued a CAA section 114 ICR
to obtain process and emissions data for RS manufacturing lines and we
will evaluate RTR limits for these sources, based on the CAA section
114 ICR data, at a future date.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

The EPA is making environmental justice part of its mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies
and activities on minority populations and low income populations in
the United States. The EPA has established policies regarding the
integration of

[[Page 45323]]

environmental justice into the agency's rulemaking efforts, including
recommendations for the consideration and conduct of analyses to
evaluate potential environmental justice concerns during the
development of a rule.
Following these recommendations, to gain a better understanding of
the source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a
proximity analysis for mineral wool production and wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities prior to proposal to identify any
overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations.
This analysis gives an indication of the prevalence of sub-populations
that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources.
The EPA also conducted a risk-based socio-economic analysis for
populations living near wool fiberglass facilities titled ``Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations
Living Near Wool Fiberglass Facilities,'' which is available in the
docket. The analysis indicated that 1,207,000 individuals living within
50 km of the wool fiberglass facilities have a cancer risk of 1-in-1
million or greater due to emissions from wool fiberglass facilities.
The specific demographic results indicate that the percentage of
minority population potentially impacted by emissions from wool
fiberglass facilities (i.e., within 50 km) is greater than the national
minority percentage (44 percent for the source category compared to 28-
percent nationwide). Furthermore, other demographic groups with source
category percentages greater than the corresponding national percentage
include: The population over 25 without a high school diploma (18
percent compared to 15 percent); the population from 18 to 64 years of
age (66 percent compared to 63 percent), and the population below the
poverty level (15 percent compared to 14 percent). The other
demographic categories potentially impacted by emissions from wool
fiberglass facilities (i.e., African American, Native American, ages
less than 18, and ages 65 and up) are less than or equal to the
corresponding national percentage.
The EPA's integration of environmental justice into the agency's
rulemaking efforts was also thoroughly demonstrated by EPA's Region 7
response to emissions data obtained through this rulemaking. Region 7
proactively engaged the local community and identified potential
environmental concerns; conducted air monitoring and modeling; and
opened lines of communication and launched several opportunities for
the community to voice concerns, ask questions, and receive additional
information. Additionally, EPA Headquarters and Region 7 worked
together to provide resources for communities, as well as to ensure
that feedback received from the Region 7 communities was being
considered in this rulemaking.
Through our analyses, the EPA has determined that these final rules
for 40 CFR part 63, subparts NN, DDD, and NNN will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations.
Additionally, the final changes to the NESHAP for Mineral Wool
Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source categories increase
the level of environmental protection for all affected populations by
reducing emissions of chromium compounds by over 524 pounds per year
and will not cause any disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low
income, or indigenous populations. Our demographic analysis shows that
disproportionately impacted minority areas will benefit from the lower
emissions. Further details concerning this analysis are presented in
the memorandum titled, ``Updated Environmental Justice Review: Mineral
Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing RTR,'' a copy of
which is available in the dockets for this action.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

As part of the health and risk assessments, risk-based demographic
analysis conducted for this action, risks to infants and children were
assessed. This analysis is documented in the following memoranda which
are available in the dockets for this action:

``Residual Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool
Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories in
Support of the June 2015 Final Rule''
``Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-
Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Wool Fiberglass
Facilities''

The results of the risk-based socio-economic analysis for
populations living near wool fiberglass facilities indicates that there
are 1,207,000 individuals living within 50 km of the wool fiberglass
facilities have a cancer risk of 1-in-1-million or greater (based on
actual emissions). The distribution of the population with risks above
1-in-1 million is 24 percent for ages 0 to 17, 66 percent for ages 18
to 64, and 10 percent for ages 65 and up. Children ages 0 to 17 also
constitute 24 percent of the population nationwide. Therefore, the
analysis shows that actual emissions from wool fiberglass facilities do
not have a disproportionate impacts on children ages 0 to 17.
The results of the demographic analysis show that the average
percentage of children 17 years and younger in close proximity to
mineral wool production and wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities is
similar to the percentage of the national population in this age group.
The difference in the absolute number of percentage points of the
population 17 years and younger from the national average indicates a
7-percent over-representation near mineral wool production and wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
Consistent with the EPA's ``Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to
Children'', we conducted inhalation and multipathway risk assessments
for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source categories considering risk to infants and children.\24\
Children are exposed to chemicals emitted to the atmosphere via two
primary routes: Either directly via inhalation, or indirectly via
ingestion or dermal contact with various media that have been
contaminated with the emitted chemicals. The EPA considers the
possibility that children might be more sensitive than adults might be
to toxic chemicals, including chemical carcinogens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 2014. Available
at https://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/1995_childrens_health_policy_statement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For our multipathway screening assessment (i.e., ingestion), we
assessed risks for adults and various age groups of children to
determine what age group was most at risk for purposes of developing
the screening/emission threshold for each persistent and
bioaccumulative--HAP (PB-HAP). Childrens' exposures are expected to
differ from exposures of adults due to differences in body weights,
ingestion rates, dietary preferences, and other factors. It is
important, therefore, to evaluate the contribution of exposures during
childhood to total lifetime risk using appropriate exposure factor
values, applying age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAF) as
appropriate. The EPA developed a health protective exposure scenario
whereby the receptor, at various lifestages, receives ingestion
exposure via both the farm food chain and the fish ingestion pathways.
Based on the analyses described above, the EPA has determined that
the

[[Page 45324]]

changes to these rules, which will reduce emissions of chromium
compounds by over 524 pounds per year, will lead to reduced risk to
children and infants. The final amendments will also codify the
reductions in emissions (COS, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol from
mineral wool facilities, and formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from
wool fiberglass facilities) that the industries have achieved since the
NESHAP for the respective source categories were promulgated in 1999.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-order.

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection activities in these rules have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that
the EPA prepared for the Mineral Wool Production source category has
been assigned EPA ICR number 1799.06. The ICR document that the EPA
prepared for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1160.10. You can find a copy of these ICRs in
the dockets for these rules, and they are briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
The information requirements in these rulemakings are based on the
notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for
all operators subject to national emission standards. These
notifications, reports and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42
U.S.C. 7414).
Mineral Wool Production source category:
Respondents/affected entities: Existing, new, or reconstructed
mineral wool production facilities that are major sources.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414).
Estimated number of respondents: 8.
Frequency of response: Annual.
Total estimated burden: 123 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $25,150 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (major sources):
Respondents/affected entities: Existing, new, or reconstructed wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities that are major sources.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414).
Estimated number of respondents: 10.
Frequency of response: Annual.
Total estimated burden: 156 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $46,142 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category (area sources):
Respondents/affected entities: Existing, new, or reconstructed gas-
fired glass-melting furnaces at a wool fiberglass manufacturing
facility that are located at a plant site that is an area source.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C 7414).
Estimated number of respondents: 5.
Frequency of response: Annual.
Total estimated burden: 78 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $32,334 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. Five of
the eight mineral wool production parent companies affected in the
final rule are considered to be small entities per the definition
provided in this section. There are no small businesses in the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category. We estimate that these final
rules will not have a significant economic impact on any of those
companies.
While there are some costs imposed on affected small businesses as
a result of these rulemakings, the costs associated with this action
are less than the costs associated with the limits proposed on November
25, 2011. Specifically, the cost to small entities in the Mineral Wool
Production source category due to the changes in COS, HF, and HCl are
lower as compared to the limits proposed on November 25, 2011, and
April 15, 2013. None of the five small mineral wool parent companies is
expected to have an annualized compliance cost of greater than 1
percent of its revenues. All other affected parent companies are not
small businesses according to the SBA small business size standard for
the affected NAICS code (NAICS 327993). Therefore, we have determined
that the impacts for this final rule do not constitute a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Although these final rules would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless
has tried to mitigate the impact that these rules would have on small
entities. The actions we took to mitigate impacts on small businesses
include less frequent compliance testing for the entire mineral wool
industry and subcategorizing the Mineral Wool Production source
category in developing the proposed COS, HF and HCl emissions limits.
For more information, please refer to the economic impact and small
business analysis that is in the docket.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on
the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

[[Page 45325]]

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. These final rules impose requirements on owners
and operators of specified area and major sources, and not tribal
governments. There are no wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities or
mineral wool production facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections IV.A, VI.A, VIII.F, VIII.G of this preamble and in the
``Residual Risk Assessment for the Mineral Wool Production and Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Categories'' memorandum available in
the dockets for this rulemaking.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN)
Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and
accessed and searched their databases.
As discussed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR
68029), under 40 CFR part 63 subpart DDD, we conducted searches for EPA
Methods 5, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. Under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart NNN, we conducted searches for EPA Methods 5, 318,
320, 29, and 0061 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. Under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart NN, we conducted searches for EPA Methods 5 and 29. These
searches did not identify any VCS that were potentially applicable for
this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. The EPA solicited comments
on VCS and invited the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS;
however, we did not receive comments regarding this aspect of 40 CFR
part 63, subparts NN, DDD, or NNN.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. As explained in
the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR 68029), the EPA
determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations, because it increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population. Further details concerning this analysis are presented in
the memorandum titled, ``Updated Environmental Justice Review: Mineral
Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing RTR'', a copy of
which is available in the dockets for this action. Additionally, the
EPA engaged meaningfully with communities throughout this rulemaking
process, to help them engage in the rulemaking process and to get their
feedback on the proposed rulemaking. Also, EPA worked closely with
Region 7, to ensure that communities that raised concerns by the
sectors covered in this rulemaking, were being adequately engaged
throughout this process.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Mineral wool production,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass
manufacturing.

Dated: June 25, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Subpart NN is added to part 63 to read as follows:
Subpart NN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources
Sec.
63.880 Applicability.
63.881 Definitions.
63.882 Emission standards.
63.883 Monitoring requirements.
63.884 Performance test requirements.
63.885 Test methods and procedures.
63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
63.887 Compliance dates.
63.888 Startups and shutdowns.
63.889-63.899 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart NN of Part 63-- Applicability of General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN

Subpart NN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing at Area Sources

Sec. 63.880 Applicability.

(a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator
of each wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an area source
or is located at a facility that is an area source.
(b) The requirements of this subpart apply to emissions of chromium
compounds, as measured according to the methods and procedures in this
subpart, emitted from each new and existing gas-fired glass-melting
furnace located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility that is an
area source.
(c) The provisions of subpart A of this part that apply and those
that do not apply to this subpart are specified in Table 1 to this
subpart.
(d) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces that are not subject to
subpart NNN of this part are subject to this subpart.

[[Page 45326]]

(e) Gas-fired glass-melting furnaces using electricity as a
supplemental energy source are subject to this subpart.

Sec. 63.881 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
Bag leak detection system means systems that include, but are not
limited to, devices using triboelectric, light scattering, and other
effects to monitor relative or absolute particulate matter emissions.
Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a
refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high
temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned
to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations, superstructure
and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat exchangers,
exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical
boosting equipment, integral control systems and instrumentation, and
appendages for conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming
processes. The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not
considered part of the gas-fired glass-melting furnace. Cold-top
electric glass-melting furnaces as defined in subpart NNN of this part
are not gas-fired glass-melting furnaces.
Glass pull rate means the mass of molten glass that is produced by
a single glass-melting furnace or that is used in the manufacture of
wool fiberglass at a single manufacturing line in a specified time
period.
Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that
uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to
noncombustible gases. For the purposes of this subpart, the term
``incinerator'' means ``regenerative thermal oxidizer''.
Manufacturing line means the manufacturing equipment for the
production of wool fiberglass that consists of a forming section where
molten glass is fiberized and a fiberglass mat is formed and which may
include a curing section where binder resin in the mat is thermally set
and a cooling section where the mat is cooled.
New source means any affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced after April 15, 2013.
Wool fiberglass means insulation materials composed of glass fibers
made from glass produced or melted at the same facility where the
manufacturing line is located.
Wool fiberglass manufacturing facility means any facility
manufacturing wool fiberglass.

Sec. 63.882 Emission standards.

(a) Emission limits for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces. For each
existing, new, or reconstructed gas-fired glass-melting furnace, on and
after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.887 whichever date is
earlier, you must not discharge or cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere emissions in excess of 0.00025 lb of chromium compounds per
ton of glass pulled (0.25 lb per thousand tons glass pulled).
(b) Operating limits. On and after the date on which the
performance test required by Sec. Sec. 63.7 and 63.1384 is completed,
you must operate all affected control equipment and processes according
to the following requirements.
(1)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour of an
alarm from a bag leak detection system and complete corrective actions
in a timely manner according to the procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with
the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64,
subpart D when the bag leak detection system alarm is sounded for more
than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting
period.
(2)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any
3-hour block average of the monitored electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
parameter is outside the limit(s) established during the performance
test as specified in Sec. 63.884 and complete corrective actions in a
timely manner according to the procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with
the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64,
subpart D when the monitored ESP parameter is outside the limit(s)
established during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.884
for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period.
(iii) You must operate the ESP such that the monitored ESP
parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the
performance test as specified in Sec. 63.884 for more than 10 percent
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(3)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when any
3-hour block average value for the monitored parameter(s) for a gas-
fired glass-melting furnace, which uses no add-on controls, is outside
the limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in
Sec. 63.884 and complete corrective actions in a timely manner
according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with
the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64,
subpart D when the monitored parameter(s) is outside the limit(s)
established during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.884
for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period.
(iii) You must operate a gas-fired glass-melting furnace, which
uses no add-on technology, such that the monitored parameter(s) is not
outside the limit(s) established during the performance test as
specified in Sec. 63.884 for more than 10 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(4)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when the
average glass pull rate of any 4-hour block period for gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces equipped with continuous glass pull rate monitors, or
daily glass pull rate for glass-melting furnaces not so equipped,
exceeds the average glass pull rate established during the performance
test as specified in Sec. 63.884, by greater than 20 percent and
complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to the
procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with
the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64,
subpart D when the glass pull rate exceeds, by more than 20 percent,
the average glass pull rate established during the performance test as
specified in Sec. 63.884 for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(iii) You must operate each gas-fired glass-melting furnace such
that the glass pull rate does not exceed, by more than 20 percent, the
average glass pull rate established during the most recent successful
performance test as specified in Sec. 63.884 for more than 10 percent
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.
(5)(i) You must initiate corrective action within one hour when the
average pH (for a caustic scrubber) or pressure drop (for a venturi
scrubber) for any 3-hour block period is outside the limits established
during the performance tests as specified in Sec. 63.884 for each wet
scrubbing control

[[Page 45327]]

device and complete corrective actions in a timely manner according to
the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan.
(ii) You must implement a Quality Improvement Plan consistent with
the compliance assurance monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 64,
subpart D when any scrubber parameter is outside the limit(s)
established during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.884
for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month block
reporting period.
(iii) You must operate each scrubber such that each monitored
parameter is not outside the limit(s) established during the
performance test as specified in Sec. 63.884 for more than 10 percent
of the total operating time in a 6-month block reporting period.

Sec. 63.883 Monitoring requirements.

You must meet all applicable monitoring requirements contained in
subpart NNN of this part.

Sec. 63.884 Performance test requirements.

(a) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart you must
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.882. For existing sources,
compliance is demonstrated when the emission rate of the pollutant is
equal to or less than each of the applicable emission limits in Sec.
63.882 by July 31, 2017. For new sources compliance is demonstrated
when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each
of the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.882 by January 25, 2016
or 180 days after initial startup, whichever is later. You must conduct
the performance test according to the procedures in subpart A of this
part and in this section.
(b) You must meet all applicable performance test requirements
contained in subpart NNN of this part.

Sec. 63.885 Test methods and procedures.

(a) You must use the following methods to determine compliance with
the applicable emission limits:
(1) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 for the selection of
the sampling port location and number of sampling ports;
(2) Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 for volumetric flow
rate;
(3) Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2) for oxygen and
carbon dioxide for diluent measurements needed to correct the
concentration measurements to a standard basis;
(4) Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4 for moisture content
of the stack gas;
(5) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8) for the concentration
of chromium compounds. Each run must consist of a minimum sample volume
of two dry standard cubic meters.
(6) An alternative method, subject to approval by the
Administrator.
(b) Each performance test must consist of three runs. You must use
the average of the three runs in the applicable equation for
determining compliance.

Sec. 63.886 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

You must meet all applicable notification, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements contained in subpart NNN of this part.

Sec. 63.887 Compliance dates.

(a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart must be in compliance with the requirements
of this subpart by no later than:
(1) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
compliance date for an owner or operator of an existing source subject
to the provisions in this subpart would be July 31, 2017.
(2) Except as noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the
compliance date for new and reconstructed sources is upon initial
startup of a new gas-fired glass-melting furnace or on July 29, 2015,
whichever is later.
(3) The compliance date for the provisions related to the
electronic reporting provisions of Sec. 63.886 is on July 29, 2015.
(b) Compliance extension. The owner or operator of an existing
source subject to this subpart may request from the Administrator an
extension of the compliance date for the emission standards for one
additional year if such additional period is necessary for the
installation of controls. You must submit a request for an extension
according to the procedures in Sec. 63.6(i)(3).

Sec. 63.888 Startups and shutdowns.

You must meet all applicable startup and shutdown provisions
contained in subpart NNN of this part.

Sec. Sec. 63.889-63.899 [Reserved]

Table 1 to Subpart NN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart NN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart NN Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(5)............. Applicability............. Yes
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)................. .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.1(a)(7)-(9)............. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(12)........... .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)................. Initial Applicability Yes
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(b)(3)................. .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)-(2)............. .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)-(4)............. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(c)(5)-(e)............. .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions............... Yes.................. Additional definitions in
Sec. 63.881.
Sec. 63.3....................... Units and Abbreviations... Yes
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(2)............. Prohibited Activities..... Yes
Sec. 63.4(a)(3)-(5)............. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................ .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.5(a)-(b)(2)............. Construction/ Yes
Reconstruction
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(4)............. .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.5(b)(5)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(b)(6)................. .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.5(c).................... .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(d).................... Application for Approval Yes
of Construction/
Reconstruction.

[[Page 45328]]

Sec. 63.5(e).................... Approval of Construction/ Yes
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f).................... Approval of Construction/ Yes
Reconstruction Based on
State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)-(d)................ Compliance with Standards Yes
and Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).............. General Duty to Minimize No................... See Sec. 63.882 for
Emissions. general duty
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............. Requirement to Correct No
Malfunctions As Soon As
Possible.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............ .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................. Startup, Shutdown, and No................... Startups and shutdowns
Malfunction (SSM) Plan. addressed in Sec.
63.888.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................. SSM Exemption............. No
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)............. Methods for Determining Yes
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g).................... Use of an Alternative Yes
Nonopacity Emission.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)................. SSM Exemption............. No
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)-(j)............. .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.7(a)-(d)................ .......................... Yes.................. Sec. 63.884 has
specific requirements.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................. Performance Testing....... No................... See Sec. 63.882.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(4)............. .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.7(f).................... Alternative Test Method... Yes
Sec. 63.7(g)(1)................. Data Analysis............. Yes
Sec. 63.7(g)(2)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.7(g)(3)................. .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.7(h).................... Waiver of Performance Test Yes
Sec. 63.8(a)-(b)................ Monitoring Requirements... Yes
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).............. General Duty to Minimize No................... See Sec. 63.882(b) for
Emissions and CMS general duty
Operation. requirement.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............. .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............ Requirement to Develop SSM No
Plan for CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2).......... .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)................. Written Procedures for CMS Yes, except for last
sentence, which
refers to SSM plan.
SSM plans are not
required
Sec. 63.8(e)-(g)................ .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.9(a).................... Notification Requirements. Yes
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(2)............. Initial Notifications..... Yes
Sec. 63.9(b)(3)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)-(5)............. .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.9(c)-(j)................ .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.10(a)................... Recordkeeping and Yes
Reporting-Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................ General Recordkeeping Yes
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)............. Recordkeeping of No
Occurrence and Duration
of Startups and Shutdowns.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............ Recordkeeping of No................... See Sec. 63.886 for
Malfunctions. recordkeeping of
occurrence and duration
of malfunctions and
recordkeeping of actions
taken during
malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)........... Maintenance Records....... Yes
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)........ Actions Taken to Minimize No
Emissions During SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)............ Recordkeeping for CMS Yes
Malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)..... Other CMS Requirements.... Yes
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Recordkeeping Requirement Yes
for Applicability
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6)............ Additional Recordkeeping Yes
Requirements for Sources
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............ Additional Recordkeeping Yes
Requirements for CMS--
Identifying Exceedances
and Excess Emissions.
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)................ .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(11).......... .......................... No................... See Sec. 63.886 for
recordkeeping of
malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(c)(12)-(14).......... .......................... Yes
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)............... Use of SSM Plan........... No
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(4)............ General Reporting Yes
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................ SSM Reports............... No................... See Sec. 63.886(c)(2)
for reporting of
malfunctions.

[[Page 45329]]

Sec. 63.10(e)-(f)............... Additional CMS Reports Yes
Excess Emission/CMS
Performance Reports COMS
Data Reports
Recordkeeping/Reporting
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11(a)-(b)............... Control Device No................... Flares will not be used
Requirements to comply with the
Applicability Flares. emissions limits.
Sec. 63.11(c)................... Alternative Work Practice Yes
for Monitoring Equipment
for Leaks.
Sec. 63.11(d)................... Alternative Work Practice Yes
Standard.
Sec. 63.11(e)................... Alternative Work Practice Yes
Requirements.
Sec. 63.12...................... State Authority and Yes
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses................. Yes
Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporation by Reference Yes
Sec. 63.15...................... Information Availability/ Yes
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16...................... Performance Track Yes
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart DDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production

0
3. Section 63.1178 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(3) to
read as follows:

Sec. 63.1178 For cupolas, what standards must I meet?

(a) You must control emissions from each cupola as specified in
Table 2 to this subpart.
(b) * * *
(3) Additionally, on or after the applicable compliance date for
each new or reconstructed cupola, you must either:
(i) Maintain the operating temperature of the incinerator so that
the average operating temperature for each three-hour block period
never falls below the average temperature established during the
performance test, or
(ii) Maintain the percent excess oxygen in the cupola at or above
the level established during the performance test. You must determine
the percent excess oxygen using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29JY15.000

Where:

Percent excess oxygen = Percentage of excess oxygen present above
the stoichiometric balance of 1.00, (%).
1.00 = Ratio of oxygen in a cupola combustion chamber divided by the
stoichiometric quantity of oxygen required to obtain complete
combustion of fuel.
Oxygen available = Quantity of oxygen introduced into the cupola
combustion zone.
Fuel demand for oxygen = Required quantity of oxygen for
stoichiometric combustion of the quantity of fuel present.

0
4. Section 63.1179 is amended by revising the section heading,
paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1179 For curing ovens or combined collection/curing
operations, what standards must I meet?

(a) You must control emissions from each curing oven or combined
collection/curing operations as specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
(b) You must meet the following operating limits for each curing
oven or combined collection/curing operation:
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.1180 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1180 When must I meet these standards?

(a) Cupolas and curing ovens or combined collection/curing
operations. You must comply with the emissions limits specified in
Table 2 to this subpart no later than the dates specified in Table 2 to
this subpart.
(b) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will
be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the source.

0
6. Section 63.1182 is amended by revising the section heading, the
introductory text, and paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1182 How do I comply with the carbon monoxide, carbonyl
sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen chloride standards for
existing, new, and reconstructed cupolas?

To comply with the carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen
fluoride, and hydrogen chloride standards, you must meet the following:
(a) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that
continuously measures the operating temperature in the firebox of each
thermal incinerator.
(b) Conduct a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 that
shows compliance with the carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen
fluoride, and hydrogen chloride emissions limits specified in Table 2
to this subpart, while the device for measuring incinerator operating
temperature is installed, operational, and properly calibrated.
Establish the average operating temperature based on the performance
test as specified in Sec. 63.1185(a).
* * * * *

[[Page 45330]]

0
7. Section 63.1183 is amended by revising the section heading, the
introductory text, and paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1183 How do I comply with the formaldehyde, phenol, and
methanol standards for existing, new, and reconstructed combined
collection/curing operations?

To comply with the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol standards,
you must meet all of the following:
* * * * *
(b) Conduct a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1188 while
manufacturing the product that requires a binder formulation made with
the resin containing the highest free-formaldehyde content
specification range. Show compliance with the formaldehyde, phenol, and
methanol emissions limits, specified in Table 2 to this subpart, while
the device for measuring the control device operating parameter is
installed, operational, and properly calibrated. Establish the average
operating parameter based on the performance test as specified in Sec.
63.1185(a).
* * * * *
(d) Following the performance test, monitor and record the free-
formaldehyde content of each resin lot and the formulation of each
batch of binder used, including the formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol
content.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.1188 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d),
(e), and (f) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1188 What performance test requirements must I meet?

* * * * *
(b) Conduct a performance test, consisting of three test runs, for
each cupola and curing oven or combined collection/curing operation
subject to this subpart at the maximum production rate to demonstrate
compliance with each of the applicable emissions limits specified in
Table 2 to this subpart.
(c) Following the initial performance or compliance test to be
conducted within 180 days of the effective date of this rule, you must
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with each of the
applicable emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, at
least once every 5 years.
(d) To demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, measure emissions of PM, carbon
monoxide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen chloride
from each existing, new, or reconstructed cupola.
(e) To demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, measure emissions of
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol from each existing, new, or
reconstructed curing oven or combined collection/curing operation.
(f) To demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, measure emissions at the outlet
of the control device for PM, carbon monoxide, carbonyl sulfide,
hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, formaldehyde, phenol, and
methanol.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.1189 is amended by revising paragraph (g) and adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1189 What test methods do I use?

* * * * *
(g) Method 318 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to this part for the
concentration of formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, and carbonyl sulfide.
* * * * *
(i) Method 26A or 320 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to this part
for the concentration of hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride.

0
10. Section 63.1190 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text and the definition of ``MW,'' and by removing paragraph (c) to
read as follows:

Sec. 63.1190 How do I determine compliance?

* * * * *
(b) Using the results from the performance tests, you must use the
following equation to determine compliance with the carbon monoxide,
carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, formaldehyde,
phenol, and methanol numerical emissions limits as specified in Table 2
to this subpart:
* * * * *

MW = Molecular weight of measured pollutant, g/g-mole: Carbon
monoxide = 28.01, carbonyl sulfide = 60.07, hydrogen fluoride =
20.01, hydrogen chloride = 36.46, Formaldehyde = 30.03, Phenol =
94.11, Methanol = 32.04.

* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.1191 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:

Sec. 63.1191 What notifications must I submit?

You must submit written or electronic notifications to the
Administrator as required by Sec. 63.9(b) through (h). Electronic
notifications are encouraged when possible. These notifications
include, but are not limited to, the following:
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.1192 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.1192 What recordkeeping requirements must I meet?

* * * * *
(d) Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily
available for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10 of the
General Provisions that are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart.
Electronic recordkeeping is encouraged.
* * * * *

0
13. Section 63.1193 is amended by revising paragraph (a), removing and
reserving paragraph (b), and adding a new paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.1193 What reports must I submit?

* * * * *
(a) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec. 63.2) required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated
fuel analyses, following the procedure specified in either paragraph
(a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site
(https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/), you must submit the
results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can be accessed
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may
submit performance test data in an electronic file format consistent
with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's
ERT Web site, once the XML schema is available. If you claim that some
of the performance test information being submitted is confidential
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site,
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The
electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-

[[Page 45331]]

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph.
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, you must submit the
results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in Sec. 63.13.
(b) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(g) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section must be sent to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13. If
acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a
source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The
Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject
to paragraph (a) of this section in paper format.

0
14. Section 63.1196 is amended by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Closed-top cupola'',
``Combined collection/curing operations'', ``Open-top cupola'', and
``Slag''; and
0
b. Revising the definition of ``Incinerator'' and ``New Source''.
The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec. 63.1196 What definitions should I be aware of?

* * * * *
Closed-top cupola means a cupola that operates as a closed
(process) system and has a restricted air flow rate.
* * * * *
Combined collection/curing operations means the combination of
fiber collection operations and curing ovens used to make bonded
products.
* * * * *
Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that
uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to
noncombustible gases. For the purposes of this subpart, the term
``incinerator'' means ``regenerative thermal oxidizer''.
* * * * *
New Source means any affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after May 8, 1997 for purposes of determining the
applicability of the emissions limits in Rows 1-4 of Table 2. For all
other emission limits new source means any affected source that
commences construction or reconstruction after November 25, 2011.
* * * * *
Open-top cupola means a cupola that is open to the outside air and
operates with an air flow rate that is unrestricted and at low
pressure.
* * * * *
Slag means the by-product materials separated from metals during
smelting and refining of raw ore.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.1197 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1197 Startups and shutdowns.

(a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
(b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are utilized for
compliance with this subpart during times when emissions are being, or
are otherwise required to be, routed to such items of equipment.
(c) Startup begins when fuels are ignited in the cupola. Startup
ends when the cupola produces molten material.
(d) Shutdown begins when the cupola has reached the end of the
melting campaign and is empty. No molten material continues to flow
from the cupola during shutdown.
(e) During periods of startups and shutdowns you must operate your
cupola according to one of the following methods:
(1) You must keep records showing that your emissions were
controlled using air pollution control devices operated at the
parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed
compliance with the standard; or
(2) You must keep records showing the following:
(i) You used only clean fuels during startup and shutdown; and
(ii) You operate the cupola during startup and shutdown with three
percent oxygen over the fuel demand for oxygen.

0
16. Table 1 to subpart DDD of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
DDD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
General provisions citation Requirement DDD? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(6)............. General Applicability..... Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(a)(7)-(9)............. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(12)........... .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)................. Initial Applicability Yes..................
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(b)(3)................. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)-(2)............. Applicability After Yes..................
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)-(4)............. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(c)(5)-(e)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions............... Yes..................
Sec. 63.3....................... Units and Abbreviations... Yes..................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(2)............. Prohibited Activities..... Yes..................
Sec. 63.4(a)(3)-(5)............. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................ .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(a)(1)-(b)(2).......... Construction/ Yes..................
Reconstruction
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(4)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(b)(5)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(b)(6)................. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(c).................... .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(d)-(f)................ .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(a)-(d)................ .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).............. General Duty to Minimize No................... See Sec. 63.1180(d) for
Emissions. general duty
requirement.

[[Page 45332]]

Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............. Requirement to Correct No................... Sec. 63.1187(b)
Malfunctions As Soon As specifies additional
Possible. requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............ .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................. Startup, Shutdown, No................... Startups and shutdowns
Malfunction (SSM) Plan. addressed in Sec.
63.1197.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................. SSM Exemption............. No...................
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(g)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)................. SSM Exemption............. No...................
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)-(j)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.7(a)-(d)................ Performance Testing Yes..................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................. Conduct of Performance No................... See Sec. 63.1180.
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(f)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.7(g)(1)................. Data Analysis, Yes..................
Recordkeeping, and
Reporting.
Sec. 63.7(g)(2)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.7(g)(3)-(h)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(a)-(b)................ Monitoring Requirements... Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).............. General Duty to Minimize No................... See Sec. 63.1180(e) for
Emissions and CMS general duty
Operation. requirement.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............ Requirement to Develop SSM No...................
Plan for CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2).......... .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)................. Written Procedures for CMS Yes, except for last .........................
sentence, which
refers to SSM plan.
SSM plans are not
required..
Sec. 63.8(e)-(g)................ .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(a).................... Applicability and General Yes..................
Information.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(2)............. Initial Notifications..... Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(b)(3)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)-(b)(5).......... .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(c)-(j)................ .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(a)................... Recordkeeping and Yes..................
Reporting Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................ General Recordkeeping Yes..................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)............. Recordkeeping of No...................
Occurrence and Duration
of Startups and Shutdowns.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............ Recordkeeping of No................... See Sec. 63.1193(c) for
Malfunctions. recordkeeping of (ii)
occurrence and duration
and (iii) actions taken
during malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)........... Maintenance Records....... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)........ Actions Taken to Minimize No...................
Emissions During SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)............ Recordkeeping for CMS Yes..................
Malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)..... Other CMS Requirements.... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Recordkeeping Requirement Yes..................
for Applicability
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6)............ Additional Recordkeeping Yes..................
Requirements for Sources
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............ Additional Recordkeeping Yes..................
Requirements for CMS--
Identifying Exceedances
and Excess Emissions.
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)................ .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(11).......... .......................... No................... See Sec. 63.1192 for
recordkeeping of
malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(c)(12)-(14).......... .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)............... Use of SSM Plan........... No...................
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(4)............ General Reporting Yes..................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................ SSM Reports............... No................... See Sec. 63.1193(f) for
reporting of
malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(e)-(f)............... Additional CMS Reports Yes..................
Excess Emission/CMS
Performance Reports COMS
Data Reports
Recordkeeping/Reporting
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11(a)-(b)............... Control Device No................... Flares will not be used
Requirements to comply with the
Applicability Flares. emissions limits.
Sec. 63.11(c)................... Alternative Work Practice Yes..................
for Monitoring Equipment
for Leaks.
Sec. 63.11(d)................... Alternative Work Practice Yes..................
Standard.
Sec. 63.11(e)................... .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.12...................... State Authority and Yes..................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses................. Yes..................

[[Page 45333]]

Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporation by Reference Yes..................
Sec. 63.15...................... Information Availability/ Yes..................
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16...................... Performance Track Yes..................
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
17. Subpart DDD is amended by adding Table 2 to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart DDD of Part 63--Emissions Limits and Compliance Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you commenced Your emission limits
If your source is a: construction: are: \1\ And you must comply by: \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cupola......................... On or before May 8, 0.10 lb PM per ton June 2, 2002.
1997. of melt.
2. Cupola......................... After May 8, 1997.... 0.10 lb PM per ton June 1, 1999.
of melt.
3. Cupola......................... On or before May 8, a. 0.10 lb carbon June 2, 2002.
1997. monoxide (CO) per
ton of melt,\3\ or
b. Reduction of
uncontrolled CO by
at least 99 percent
\3\.
4. Cupola......................... After May 8, 1997 but a. 0.10 lb CO per June 1, 1999.
on or before ton of melt,\3\ or
November 25, 2011. b. Reduction of
uncontrolled CO by
at least 99
percent.\3\.
5. Closed-top cupola.............. On or before November 3.4 lb of carbonyl July 30, 2018.
25, 2011. sulfide (COS) per
ton melt.
6. Closed-top cupola.............. After November 25, 0.062 lb of COS per July 29, 2015.\4\
2011. ton melt.
7. Open-top cupola................ On or before November 6.8 lb of COS per July 30, 2018.
25, 2011. ton melt.
8. Open-top cupola................ After November 25, 3.2 lb of COS per July 29, 2015.\4\
2011. ton melt.
9. Cupola using slag as a raw On or before November 0.16 lb of hydrogen July 30, 2018.
material. 25, 2011. fluoride (HF) per
ton melt.
0.44 lb of hydrogen
chloride (HCl) per
ton melt..
10. Cupola using slag as a raw After November 25, 0.015 lb of HF per July 29, 2015.\4\
material. 2011. ton melt.
0.012 lb of HCl per
ton melt..
11. Cupola not using slag as a raw On or before November 0.13 lb of HF per July 30, 2018.
material. 25, 2011. ton melt.
0.43 lb of HCl per
ton melt..
12. Cupola not using slag as a raw After November 25, 0.018 lb of HF per July 29, 2015.\4\
material. 2011. ton melt.
0.015 lb of HCl per
ton melt..
17. Curing oven................... On or before May 8, a. 0.06 lb of June 2, 2002.
1997. formaldehyde per
ton of melt,\3\ or
b. Reduction of
uncontrolled
formaldehyde by at
least 80
percent.\3\.
18. Curing oven................... After May 8, 1997 but a. 0.06 lb of June 1, 1999.
before November 25, formaldehyde per
2011. ton of melt,\3\ or
b. Reduction of
uncontrolled
formaldehyde by at
least 80
percent.\3\.
19. Combined drum collection/ On or before November 0.17 lb of July 30, 2018.
curing operation. 25, 2011. formaldehyde per
ton of melt.
0.28 lb of methanol
per ton melt..
0.85 lb of phenol
per ton melt..
20. Combined drum collection/ After November 25, 0.17 lb of July 29, 2015.\4\
curing operation. 2011. formaldehyde per
ton of melt.
0.28 lb of methanol
per ton melt..
0.85 lb of phenol
per ton melt..
21. Combined horizontal collection/ On or before November 0.63 lb of July 30, 2018.
curing operation. 25, 2011. formaldehyde per
ton of melt.
0.049 lb of methanol
per ton melt..
0.12 lb of phenol
per ton melt..
22. Combined horizontal collection/ After November 25, 0.63 lb of July 29, 2015.\4\
curing operation. 2011. formaldehyde per
ton of melt.
0.049 lb of methanol
per ton melt..
0.12 lb of phenol
per ton melt..
23. Combined vertical collection/ On or before November 2.4 lb of July 30, 2018.
curing operation. 25, 2011. formaldehyde per
ton melt.
0.92 lb of methanol
per ton melt..
0.71 lb of phenol
per ton melt..
24. Combined vertical collection/ After November 25, 2.4 lb of July 29, 2015.\4\
curing operation. 2011. formaldehyde per
ton melt.
0.92 lb of methanol
per ton melt..
0.71 lb of phenol
per ton melt..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The numeric emissions limits do not apply during startup and shutdown.
\2\ Existing sources must demonstrate compliance by the compliance dates specified in this table. New sources
have 180 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate compliance.
\3\ This emissions limit does not apply after July 30, 2018.
\4\ Or upon initial startup, whichever is later.

[[Page 45334]]

Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

0
18. Section 63.1380 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.1380 Applicability.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Each new and existing flame attenuation wool fiberglass
manufacturing line producing a bonded product.
* * * * *

0
19. Section 63.1381 is amended by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Gas-fired glass-
melting furnace''; and
0
b. Revising the definitions of ``Incinerator'' and ``New source''.
The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec. 63.1381 Definitions.

* * * * *
Gas-fired glass-melting furnace means a unit comprising a
refractory vessel in which raw materials are charged, melted at high
temperature using natural gas and other fuels, refined, and conditioned
to produce molten glass. The unit includes foundations, superstructure
and retaining walls, raw material charger systems, heat exchangers,
exhaust system, refractory brick work, fuel supply and electrical
boosting equipment, integral control systems and instrumentation, and
appendages for conditioning and distributing molten glass to forming
processes. The forming apparatus, including flow channels, is not
considered part of the gas-fired glass-melting furnace. Cold-top
electric furnaces as defined in this subpart are not gas-fired glass-
melting furnaces.
* * * * *
Incinerator means an enclosed air pollution control device that
uses controlled flame combustion to convert combustible materials to
noncombustible gases. For the purposes of this subpart, the term
``incinerator'' means ``regenerative thermal oxidizer''.
* * * * *
New source means any affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after March 31, 1997 for purposes of determining the
applicability of the emission limits in rows 1, 2 and 7 through 11 in
Table 2. New source means any affected source that commences
construction or reconstruction after November 25, 2011 for purposes of
determining the applicability of all other emissions limits.
* * * * *

0
20. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraph (a), redesignating
paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and adding new pargraph (b) and
paragraph (c)(11) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1382 Emission standards.

(a) You must control emissions from each glass-melting furnace,
rotary spin manufacturing line, and flame attenuation manufacturing
line as specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
(b) On or after July 29, 2015 to reduce emissions of hydrogen
chloride and hydrogen fluoride from each existing, new, or
reconstructed glass-melting furnace, you must either:
(1) Require cullet providers to provide records of their
inspections showing that no glass from industrial (also known as
continuous strand, or textile) fiberglass, cathode ray tubes (CRT),
computer monitors that include CRT, and glass from microwave ovens,
televisions or other electronics is included in the cullet; or
(2) Sample your raw materials and maintain records of your sampling
showing that the cullet is free of glass from industrial fiberglass,
cathode ray tubes, computer monitors that include cathode ray tubes,
and glass from microwave ovens, televisions or other electronics.
(c) * * *
(11) The owner or operator must maintain the percentage of cullet
in the materials mix for each gas-fired glass-melting furnace at or
below the level established during the performance test as specified in
Sec. 63.1384(a)(4).

0
21. Section 63.1383 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (m) to
read as follows:

Sec. 63.1383 Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
(f) If you use a control device to control HAP emissions from a
glass-melting furnace, RS manufacturing line, or FA manufacturing line,
you must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring device
that continuously measures an appropriate parameter for the control
device. You must establish the value of that parameter during the
performance test conducted to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limit as specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(m) For all control device and process operating parameters
measured during the initial performance tests, including the materials
mix used in the test, you may change the limits established during the
initial performance tests if you conduct additional performance testing
to verify that, at the new control device or process parameter levels,
you comply with the applicable emission limits specified in Table 2 to
this subpart. You must conduct all additional performance tests
according to the procedures in this part 63, subpart A and in Sec.
63.1384.

0
22. Section 63.1384 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (c)
introductory text, and the definitions of ``E'', ``C'', and ``MW'', and
adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1384 Performance test requirements.

(a) * * *
(4) The owner or operator shall conduct a performance test for each
existing and new gas-fired glass-melting furnace. During the
performance test of each gas-fired glass-melting furnace, the owner or
operator must measure and record the materials mix, including the
percentages of raw materials and cullet, melted in the furnace during
the performance test.
* * * * *
(c) To determine compliance with the emission limits specified in
Table 2 to this subpart, for formaldehyde for RS manufacturing lines;
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for FA manufacturing lines; and
chromium compounds for gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, use the
following equation:
* * * * *
E = Emission rate of formaldehyde, phenol, methanol, chromium
compounds, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of glass pulled;
C = Measured volume fraction of formaldehyde, phenol, methanol,
chromium compounds, ppm;
MW = Molecular weight of formaldehyde, 30.03 g/g-mol; molecular
weight of phenol, 94.11 g/g-mol; molecular weight of methanol, 32.04
g/g-mol; molecular weight of chromium compounds tested in g/g-mol.
* * * * *
(d) Following the initial performance or compliance test conducted
to demonstrate compliance with the chromium compounds emissions limit
specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must conduct an annual
performance test for chromium compounds emissions from each gas-fired
glass-melting furnace (no later than 12 calendar months following the
previous compliance test).
(e) Following the initial performance or compliance test to
demonstrate compliance with the PM, formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol
emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, you must conduct
a performance test to

[[Page 45335]]

demonstrate compliance with each of the applicable PM, formaldehyde,
phenol, and methanol emissions limits in Sec. 63.1382 at least once
every five years.

0
23. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6),
redesignating paragraph (a)(10) as paragraph (a)(13), and adding
paragraphs (a)(10) through (12) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1385 Test methods and procedures.

(a) * * *
(5) Method 5 or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) for the
concentration of total PM. When using Method 5, each run must consist
of a minimum sample volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm). When
using Method 29, each run must consist of a minimum sample volume of 3
dscm. When measuring PM concentration using either Method 5 or 29, the
probe and filter holder heating system must be set to provide a gas
temperature no greater than 12014[deg]C (24825[emsp14][deg]F).
(6) For measuring the concentration of formaldehyde, use one of the
following test methods:
(i) Method 318 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must
consist of a minimum of 10 spectra.
(ii) Method 316 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must
consist of a minimum of 2 dry standard cubic meters (dscm) of sample
volume.
* * * * *
(10) For measuring the concentration of phenol, use Method 318
(appendix A of this part). Each test run must consist of a minimum of
10 spectra.
(11) For measuring the concentration of methanol, use one of the
following test methods:
(i) Method 318 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must
consist of a minimum of 10 spectra.
(ii) Method 308 (appendix A of this part). Each test run must
consist of a minimum of 2 hours.
(12) Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8) for the concentration
of chromium compounds. Each test run must consist of a minimum sample
volume of 3 dscm.
* * * * *

0
24. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) through
(4), removing and reserving paragraph (b), revising paragraph (c), and
adding paragraphs (d)(2)(x) and (xi), (f) and (g) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

(a) * * *
(2) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where
the initial startup is before November 25, 2011.
(3) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where
the source is new or has been reconstructed the initial startup is
after November 25, 2011, and for which an application for approval of
construction or reconstruction is not required;
(4) Notification of intention to construct a new affected source or
reconstruct an affected source; of the date construction or
reconstruction commenced; of the anticipated date of startup; of the
actual date of startup, where the initial startup of a new or
reconstructed source occurs after November 25, 2011, and for which an
application for approval or construction or reconstruction is required
(See Sec. 63.9(b)(4) and (5));
* * * * *
(c) Records and reports for a failure to meet a standard. (1) In
the event that an affected unit fails to meet a standard, record the
number of failures since the prior notification of compliance status.
For each failure record the date, time, and duration of each failure.
(2) For each failure to meet a standard record and retain a list of
the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each
regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
(3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.1382, including corrective actions to restore process and air
pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation.
(4) If an affected unit fails to meet a standard, report such
events in the notification of compliance status required by Sec.
63.1386(a)(7). Report the number of failures to meet a standard since
the prior notification. For each instance, report the date, time, and
duration of each failure. For each failure the report must include a
list of the affected units or equipment, an estimate of the volume of
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard, and a description
of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(x) Records of your cullet sampling or records of inspections from
cullet providers.
(xi) For each gas-fired glass-melting furnace that uses cullet,
records of the daily average cullet percentage, and the 30-day rolling
average percent cullet in the materials mix charged to the furnace. The
initial daily average should be recorded on the compliance date and the
first 30-day rolling average should be calculated 30 days after the
compliance date.
* * * * *
(f) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec. 63.2) required in this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated
fuel analyses, following the procedure specified in either paragraph
(f)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site
(https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/), you must submit the
results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can be accessed
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may
submit performance test data in an electronic file format consistent
with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's
ERT Web site, once the XML schema is available. If you claim that some
of the performance test information being submitted is confidential
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site,
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive
or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The
electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via
the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, you must submit the
results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in Sec. 63.13.
(g) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the
requirements in paragraph (f) of this section must be sent to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13. If
acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or

[[Page 45336]]

operator of a source, these reports may be submitted on electronic
media. The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of
reports subject to paragraph (f) of this section in paper format.

0
25. Section 63.1387 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1387 Compliance dates.

(a) Compliance dates. You must comply with the emissions limits by
the dates specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(c) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will
be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the source.

0
26. Section 63.1389 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1389 Startups and shutdowns.

(a) The provisions set forth in this subpart apply at all times.
(b) You must not shut down items of equipment that are required or
utilized for compliance with the provisions of this subpart during
times when emissions are being, or are otherwise required to be, routed
to such items of equipment.
(c) Startup begins when the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace
has any raw materials added and reaches 50 percent of its typical
operating temperature. Startup ends when molten glass begins to flow
from the wool fiberglass glass-melting furnace. For cold-top electric
furnaces, startup ends when the batch cover is established and the
temperature of the glass batch-cover surface is below
300[emsp14][deg]F.
(d) Shutdown begins when the heat sources to the glass-melting
furnace are reduced to begin the glass-melting furnace shut down
process. Shutdown ends when the glass-melting furnace is empty or the
contents are sufficiently viscous to preclude glass flow from the
glass-melting furnace.
(e) During periods of startup and shutdown in a cold-top furnace
that is routed to a baghouse during normal operation, you must
establish the batch cover and operate your furnace according to the
following requirements during startup and shutdown:
(1) You must keep records showing that you used only natural gas or
other clean fuels to heat each furnace; and
(2) Except after batch cover is established, you must keep records
showing that you used only cullet as a raw material during the startup
of each cold-top furnace; and
(3) Once a batch cover is established and a control device can be
safely operated, you must keep records showing that furnace emissions
were controlled using air pollution control devices operated at the
parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed
compliance with the standard.
(4) During periods of shutdown in a cold-top furnace, until the
conditions above the glass reach a point at which the control device
may be damaged if it continues to operate, you must keep records
showing furnace emissions were controlled using air pollution control
devices operated at the parameters established by the most recent
performance test that showed compliance with the standard.
(f) During both periods of startups and shutdowns for all furnace
types other than cold-top furnaces, you must operate each furnace
according to the following requirements:
(1) You must record the type of fuel used to heat the furnace
during startup and shutdown to demonstrate that you used only natural
gas or other clean fuels; and
(2) You must keep records showing that furnace emissions were
controlled using air pollution control devices operated at the
parameters established by the most recent performance test that showed
compliance with the standard.
0
27. Table 1 to subpart NNN of part 63 is revised to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
NNN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
General provisions citation Requirement NNN? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(5)............. Applicability............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)................. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(a)(7)-(9)............. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(12)........... .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)................. Initial Applicability Yes..................
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(b)(3)................. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)-(2)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)-(4)............. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(c)(5)-(e)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions............... Yes..................
Sec. 63.3....................... Units and Abbreviations... Yes..................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(2)............. Prohibited Activities..... Yes..................
Sec. 63.4(a)(3)-(5)............. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................ .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(a)-(b)(2)............. Construction/ Yes..................
Reconstruction
Applicability.
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(4)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(b)(5)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(b)(6)................. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(c).................... .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(d).................... Application for Approval Yes..................
of Construction or
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e).................... Approval of Construction/ Yes..................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f).................... Approval of Construction/ Yes..................
Reconstruction Based on
State Review.

[[Page 45337]]

Sec. 63.6(a)-(d)................ Compliance with Standards Yes..................
and Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).............. General Duty to Minimize No................... See Sec. 63.1382(b) for
Emissions. general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............. Requirement to Correct No................... Sec. 63.1382(b)
Malfunctions As Soon As specifies additional
Possible. requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............ .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................. Startup, Shutdown, No................... Startups and shutdowns
Malfunction (SSM) Plan. addressed in Sec.
63.1388.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................. SSM Exemption............. No...................
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)............. Methods for Determining Yes..................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g).................... Use of an Alternative Yes..................
Nonopacity Emission
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)................. SSM Exemption............. No...................
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)-(j)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.7(a)-(d)................ .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................. Performance Testing....... No................... See Sec. 63.1382(b).
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4).......... .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.7(f).................... Alternative Test Method... Yes..................
Sec. 63.7(g)(1)................. Data Analysis............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.7(g)(2)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.7(g)(3)................. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.7(h).................... Waiver of Performance Test Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(a)-(b)................ Monitoring Requirements... Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).............. General Duty to Minimize No................... See Sec. 63.1382(c) for
Emissions and CMS general duty
Operation. requirement.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............ Requirement to Develop SSM No...................
Plan for CMS.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2)............. Quality Control Program... Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)................. Written Procedures for CMS Yes, except for last
sentence, which
refers to SSM plan.
SSM plans are not
required.
Sec. 63.8(e)-(g)................ .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(a).................... Notification Requirements. Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(2)............. Initial Notifications..... Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(b)(3)................. .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)-(j)............. .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(a)................... Recordkeeping and Yes..................
Reporting Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................ General Recordkeeping Yes..................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)............. Recordkeeping of No...................
Occurrence and Duration
of Startups and Shutdowns.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............ Recordkeeping of No................... See Sec. 63.1386 (c)(1)
Malfunctions. through (3) for
recordkeeping of
occurrence and duration
and actions taken during
a failure to meet a
standard.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)........... Maintenance Records....... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)........ Actions Taken to Minimize No...................
Emissions During SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)............ Recordkeeping for CMS Yes..................
Malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)..... Other CMS Requirements.... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Recordkeeping Requirements Yes..................
for Applicability
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6)............ Additional Recordkeeping Yes..................
Requirements for Sources
with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............ Additional Recordkeeping Yes..................
Requirements for CMS--
Identifying Exceedances
and Excess Emissions.
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)................ .......................... No................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(11).......... .......................... No................... See Sec. 63.1386 for
recordkeeping of
malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14)....... .......................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)............... Use of SSM Plan........... No...................
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(4)............ General Reporting Yes..................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................ SSM Reports............... No................... See Sec.
63.1386(c)(iii) for
reporting of
malfunctions.

[[Page 45338]]

Sec. 63.10(e)-(f)............... Additional CMS Reports Yes..................
Excess Emission/CMS
Performance Reports COMS
Data Reports
Recordkeeping/Reporting
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11(a)-(b)............... Control Device No................... Flares will not be used
Requirements to comply with the
Applicability Flares. emissions limits.
Sec. 63.11(c)................... Alternative Work Practice Yes..................
for Monitoring Equipment
for Leaks.
Sec. 63.11(d)................... Alternative Work Practice Yes..................
Standard.
Sec. 63.11(e)................... Alternative Work Practice Yes..................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.12...................... State Authority and Yes..................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporation by Reference Yes..................
Sec. 63.15...................... Availability of Yes..................
Information/
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16...................... Performance Track Yes..................
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
28. Subpart NNN is amended by adding Table 2 to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Emissions Limits and Compliance Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you commenced Your emission limits
If your source is a: construction: are: \1\ And you must comply by: \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Glass-melting furnace.......... On or before March 0.5 lb PM per ton of June 14, 2002.
31, 1997. glass pulled \3\.
2. Glass-melting furnace.......... After March 31, 1997 0.5 lb PM per ton of June 14, 1999.
but on or before glass pulled \3\.
November 25, 2011.
3. Glass-melting furnace.......... On or before November 0.33 lb PM per ton July 31, 2017.
25, 2011. of glass pulled.
4. Glass-melting furnace.......... After November 25, 0.33 lb PM per ton July 29, 2015.\4\
2011. of glass pulled.
5. Gas-fired glass-melting furnace On or before November 0.00025 lb chromium July 31, 2017.
25, 2011. compounds per ton
of glass pulled.
6. Gas-fired glass-melting furnace After November 25, 0.00025 lb chromium July 29, 2015.\4\
2011. compounds per ton
of glass pulled.
7. Rotary spin manufacturing line. On or before March 1.2 lb Formaldehyde June 14, 2002.
31, 1997. per ton of glass
pulled.
8. Rotary spin manufacturing line. After March 31, 1997. 0.8 lb Formaldehyde June 14, 1999.
per ton of glass
pulled.
9. Flame-attenuation line After March 31, 1997 7.8 lb formaldehyde June 14, 1999.
manufacturing a heavy-density but on or before per ton of glass
product. November 25, 2011. pulled \3\.
10. Flame-attenuation line On or before March 6.8 lb formaldehyde June 14, 2002.
manufacturing a pipe product. 31, 1997. per ton of glass
pulled \3\.
11. Flame-attenuation line After March 31, 1997 6.8 lb formaldehyde June 14, 1999.
manufacturing a pipe product. but before November per ton of glass
25, 2011. pulled \3\.
12. Flame-attenuation line On or before November 1.4 lb phenol per July 31, 2017.
manufacturing any product. 25, 2011. ton of glass pulled.
5.6 lb formaldehyde
per ton of glass
pulled.
0.50 lb methanol per
ton of glass pulled.
13. Flame-attenuation line After November 25, 0.44 lb phenol per July 29, 2015.\4\
manufacturing any product. 2011. ton of glass pulled.
2.6 lb formaldehyde
per ton of glass
pulled.
0.35 lb methanol per
ton of glass pulled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The numeric limits do not apply during startup and shutdown.
\2\ Existing sources must demonstrate compliance by the compliance dates specified in this table. New sources
have 180 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate compliance.
\3\ This limit does not apply after July 31, 2017.
\4\ Or initial startup, whichever is later.

[FR Doc. 2015-16643 Filed 7-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.