National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing; Rotary Spin Lines Technology Review, 40970-40981 [2017-18211]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
40970
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
preempt tribal law. Thus Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 18, 2017.
Catherine R. McCabe,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042; FRL–9967–01–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AT13
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing; Rotary Spin
Lines Technology Review
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this action, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing amendments to previous
proposals to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category. In the
July 29, 2015, final rulemaking, the EPA
deferred action on previously proposed
formaldehyde, methanol and phenol
emission limits from rotary spin (RS)
lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities. In this action, the EPA is
proposing to readopt the existing
emission limits for formaldehyde, to
establish emission limits for methanol,
and to establish a work practice
standard for phenol emissions from
bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities. In addition, the
EPA is proposing amendments to the
emission limits promulgated on July 29,
2015, for formaldehyde, methanol, and
phenol from flame attenuation (FA)
lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities. The EPA is only taking
comments on the specific proposed
requirements and revisions set forth in
this proposed rulemaking, which are
based on information contained in this
proposal. The EPA is not taking
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
The EPA must receive written
comments on this proposed rule on or
before October 13, 2017.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is
requested by September 5, 2017, then
we will hold a public hearing on
September 13, 2017. The last day to preregister in advance to speak at the
public hearing will be September 11,
2017.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–1042, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or withdrawn from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Public Hearing. If a hearing is
requested, it will be held at the EPA
WJC East Building, 1201 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. If
a public hearing is requested, then we
will provide additional details about the
public hearing on our Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sourcesair-pollution/wool-fiberglassmanufacturing-national-emissionsstandards. To request a hearing, to
register to speak at a hearing, or to
inquire if a hearing will be held, please
contact Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541–
1063 or by email at stclair.aimee@
epa.gov. The EPA does not intend to
publish any future notices in the
Federal Register regarding a public
hearing on this proposed action and
directs all inquiries regarding a hearing
to the Web site and contact person
identified above.
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2017–18290 Filed 8–28–17; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
comment on any aspect of previous
rulemakings, including the November
25, 2011, April 15, 2013, and November
13, 2014, proposals.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
For
questions about this proposed action,
contact Mr. Brian Storey, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (D243–
04), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541–1103; fax
number: (919) 541–5450; email address:
storey.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket.
The EPA has established a docket for
this rulemaking under Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the Regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., 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.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
EPA WJC West Building, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566–1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
1042. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without
going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should not include
special characters or any form of
encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about the EPA’s public docket, visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
Public Hearing. If requested by
September 5, 2017, a public hearing will
be held on September 13, 2017 at the
EPA WJC East Building, 1201
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20004. If a public hearing is
requested, then we will provide
additional details about the public
hearing on our Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/wool-fiberglassmanufacturing-national-emissionsstandards. In addition, you may contact
Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541–1063 or
email at stclair.aimee@epa.gov with
public hearing inquiries. The last day to
pre-register to speak at a hearing, if one
is held, will be September 11, 2017.
Additionally, requests to speak will be
taken the day of the hearing at the
hearing registration desk, although
preferences on speaking times may not
be able to be fulfilled. Please note that
registration requests received before the
hearing will be confirmed by the EPA
via email.
The EPA will make every effort to
accommodate all speakers who arrive
and register. If the hearing is held at a
U.S. governmental facility, individuals
planning to attend the hearing should be
prepared to show valid picture
identification to the security staff to gain
access to the meeting room. Please note
that the REAL ID Act, passed by
Congress in 2005, established new
requirements for entering federal
facilities. If your driver’s license is
issued by Alaska, American Samoa,
California, Guam, Idaho, Illinois,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire,
New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Texas, Virgin Islands, Virginia,
or the state of Washington, you must
present an additional form of
identification to enter the federal
building. Acceptable alternative forms
of identification include: Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
employee badges, passports, enhanced
driver’s licenses, and military
identification cards. In addition, you
will need to obtain a property pass for
any personal belongings you bring with
you. Upon leaving the building, you
will be required to return this property
pass to the security desk. No large signs
will be allowed in the building, cameras
may only be used outside of the
building and demonstrations will not be
allowed on federal property for security
reasons.
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:
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CD–ROM Compact Disc Read-Only Memory
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FA lame attenuation
FR Federal Register
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
HAP hazardous air pollutants
ICR information collection request
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
lb/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NESHAP national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NRDC Natural Resource Defense Council
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PF phenol-formaldehyde
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RS rotary spin
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
tpy tons per year
Organization of this Document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
Table of Contents
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. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for the EPA?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
B. What is the regulatory history for wool
fiberglass manufacturing?
C. What is the purpose of this proposal?
III. What are the proposed rule requirements
for RS lines and what is our rationale?
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40971
A. What are the proposed rule
requirements for formaldehyde
emissions from bonded RS lines?
B. What are the proposed rule
requirements for methanol emissions
from bonded RS lines?
C. What are the proposed rule
requirements for phenol emissions from
bonded RS lines?
IV. What are the proposed rule amendments
resulting from our technology review
and our proposed decisions?
A. What are the results and proposed
decisions for formaldehyde emissions
from RS lines based on our technology
review?
B. What are the proposed requirements for
methanol emissions from RS lines?
C. What are the proposed requirements for
phenol emissions from RS lines?
D. What compliance dates are we
proposing?
V. What other changes are we proposing to
the NESHAP in this action?
VI. What are the proposed amendments
applicable to FA lines?
VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and
Economic Impacts
A. How many sources are affected?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 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 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
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the
NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the
subject of this proposal. Table 1 of this
preamble is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding the entities likely
to be affected by this proposed action.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
40972
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION
Source category
NESHAP
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing ...............................................................................................................................
1
327993
North American Industry Classification System.
The proposed standards, once
promulgated, will be directly applicable
to the affected sources. Federal, state,
local, and tribal government entities are
not affected by this proposed action.
In 1992, the EPA defined the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category as any facility engaged in
producing wool fiberglass from sand,
feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous
borax, boric acid, or any other materials.
In the wool fiberglass manufacturing
process, molten glass is formed into
fibers that are bonded with an organic
resin to create a wool-like material that
is used as thermal or acoustical
insulation. The category includes, but is
not limited to, the following processes:
Glass-melting furnace, marble forming,
refining, fiber forming, binder
application, curing, and cooling.
Facilities produce bonded building
insulation using an RS manufacturing
line, and bonded pipe insulation and
other heavy-density products using an
FA manufacturing line. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
the proposed amendments, contact the
person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
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 action
is available on the Internet. A redline
version of the regulatory language that
incorporates the proposed changes in
this action is available in the docket for
this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–1042). Following
publication in the Federal Register, the
EPA will post the Federal Register
version of the proposal and key
technical documents at this same Web
site. Information on the overall residual
risk and technology review (RTR)
program is available at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Subpart NNN
NAICS code 1
C. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for the EPA?
For comments on this proposal, do
not submit information containing CBI
to the EPA through https://
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information on a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to the EPA, mark the outside
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comments that
includes information claimed as CBI,
you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI for
inclusion in the public docket. If you
submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not
contain CBI, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not
contain CBI. Information not marked as
CBI will be included in the public
docket and the EPA’s electronic public
docket without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures
set forth in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI
only to the following address: OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404–02),
OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–1042.
If you have any questions about CBI
or the procedures for claiming CBI,
please consult the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for
this action?
The statutory authority for this action
is provided by sections 112 and 301 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of
the CAA establishes a comprehensive
regulatory process to address emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from
stationary sources. In the first stage,
after the EPA has identified categories of
sources emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b), CAA
section 112(d) requires us to promulgate
technology-based NESHAP for those
sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that
emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single
HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources,
the technology-based NESHAP must
reflect the maximum degree of emission
reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements,
and non-air quality health and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
environmental impacts) and are
commonly referred to as maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
standards. Additionally, CAA section
112(h) allows the agency to adopt a
work practice standard in lieu of a
numerical emission standard only if it is
‘‘not feasible in the judgment of the
Administrator to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard for control of a
hazardous air pollutant.’’ This phrase is
defined as applying where ‘‘the
Administrator determines that the
application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of
sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic
limitations.’’ CAA section 112(h)(1) and
(2).
The EPA is required to 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. CAA
section 112(d)(6). In conducting this
review, the EPA is not required to
recalculate the MACT floor. Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir.
2008). Association of Battery Recyclers,
Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir.
2013).
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
complete a technology review for RS
lines in accordance with section
112(d)(6) of the CAA. In addition, the
EPA is proposing to amend certain
emission limits promulgated on July 29,
2015, as part of the RTR for the
standards for FA lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities.
B. What is the regulatory history for
wool fiberglass manufacturing?
The EPA promulgated the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP on
June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695). The 1999
NESHAP, which is codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart NNN, includes
emissions standards for formaldehyde
emissions from new and existing RS
lines. On July 29, 2015, we published
the final rule amendments to the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP
resulting from our completion of certain
aspects of the CAA section 112(f)(2)
residual risk review and the CAA
section 112(d)(6) technology review for
that NESHAP RTR. 80 FR 45280.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Specifically, the July 29, 2015, final
rule:
(1) Established a chromium emissions
limit for gas-fired, glass-melting
furnaces under CAA section 112(f)(2);
(2) revised the particulate matter limit
for gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces at
major sources under CAA section
112(d)(6);
(3) established work practice
standards for hydrogen chloride and
hydrogen fluoride emissions from glassmelting furnaces at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities under CAA
section 112(h);
(4) eliminated the use of
formaldehyde as a surrogate and
established revised limits for
formaldehyde and first-time limits for
methanol and phenol emitted from FA
lines under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(d)(3);
(5) eliminated FA line subcategories;
(6) removed the exemption for startup
and shutdown periods and established
work practice standards that apply
during startup and shutdown periods;
and
(7) established a chromium emission
limits for both new and existing gasfired, glass-melting furnaces at area
sources in the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category under
CAA section 112(d)(5).
In the July 2015 rule, we did not
finalize proposed emissions limits for
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol
emissions from forming cooling and
collection processes on bonded RS lines
under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
We explained that this decision was
based on comments we received on our
various proposals indicating that the
proposed limits likely relied on
incorrect data. We explained that we
had issued an Information Collection
Request (ICR) under CAA section 114
for purposes of obtaining the requisite
data. 80 FR 45293. Since then, we have
received and evaluated responses to the
ICR. More recently, we have received
new information and data from a facility
that operates FA lines that cast doubts
on information and data that the agency
relied on in promulgating the July 2015
final rule emissions limits for FA lines.
C. What is the purpose of this proposal?
This notice proposes the following
amendments to the NESHAP for the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category:
• Readopting formaldehyde emission
limits from bonded RS lines under CAA
section 112(d)(6);
• Establishing new emission limits
for methanol from bonded RS lines
under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3);
• Establishing work practice
standards for phenol from bonded RS
lines under CAA section 112(h);
• Amending the incinerator operating
limits to include cooling emissions from
both RS and FA limits under CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3);
• Establishing new subcategories of
FA lines under CAA section 112(d)(1);
• Establishing new emission limits
for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol
from most of the newly proposed FA
line subcategories under CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3); and
• Setting work practice standards for
phenol from one newly proposed FA
line subcategory under CAA section
112(h).
We are requesting comments on only
the specific proposed revisions to the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
NESHAP that are presented in this
notice. We are not reopening or
accepting comment on any other aspect
of the 2015 final rule or prior proposals.
Taking final action on the proposed
revisions to the standards for RS lines
would complete the required CAA
section 112(d)(6) review for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP.
III. What are the proposed rule
requirements for RS lines and what is
our rationale?
A. What are the proposed rule
requirements for formaldehyde
emissions from bonded RS lines?
In the July 29, 2015, final rule, we did
not finalize the proposed revisions to
the formaldehyde, methanol, and
40973
phenol emissions limits from bonded
RS lines based on comments indicating
that emission data we relied on for the
proposed limits were not representative
of either contemporaneous operations or
emissions from bonded RS lines. We
explained that the proposals were based
on emissions and process data available
to the EPA at the time the various
proposals were issued, and since that
time, approximately 95 percent of RS
lines had undergone process
modifications that involved phasing out
the use of a phenol-formaldehyde (PF)
binder and switching to HAP-free
binders. We further explained that we
had determined that the product lines
continuing to operate using PF binders
are not similar to the tested product
lines in size, end use, production rate,
or loss on ignition (LOI) percent. In
sum, we posited that available data did
not represent current industry
conditions, most notably, the significant
reduction in the use of PF binders in
wool fiberglass manufacturing. We
further explained that we had issued an
ICR, pursuant to our authority under
CAA section 114, to wool fiberglass
facilities that operate bonded RS lines in
order to obtain updated emissions,
process, and control device data for
existing RS manufacturing lines. 80 FR
45293. The first part of the ICR
requested general information regarding
RS line process equipment and control
devices. ICR Part 1. Based on the
information obtained under ICR Part 1,
the EPA issued the second part of the
ICR that required facilities to conduct
emissions testing for formaldehyde,
methanol, and phenol from bonded RS
line processes. ICR Part 2. Specifically,
ICR Part 2 required subject facilities to
collect stack emissions data from RS
lines during several testing events that
represented operations during multiple
seasonal ambient conditions. In
response to ICR Part 2, the EPA received
emissions test reports from the Johns
Manville, Knauf Insulation, and Owens
Corning facilities. Table 2 of this
preamble summarizes the sampling
program conducted under ICR Part 2.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RS LINE TEST PROGRAM
Bonded RS line
Johns Manville—Defiance, OH
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Facility
Line 89 ....................................
6/28/2016,
8/24/2016
Knauf Insulation—Shelbyville,
IN.
Lines 611, 612, 613, and 614
6/15/2016,
8/2/2016
Owens Corning—Waxahachie,
TX.
Line V1 ....................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Test dates
5/17–18/2016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Sampling locations
Collection Module A (Venturi scrubber 1 outlet).
Cooling table (Venturi scrubber 2 outlet).
Curing oven (regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) outlet).
Combined exhaust from Lines 611–614 forming process and
Lines 613 and 614 cooling process (wet electrostatic precipitator outlet).
Curing oven (RTO outlet)
Forming process (spray chamber outlet).
Cooling (high-efficiency air filter outlet).
Curing oven (incinerator outlet).
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
40974
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
In reviewing and evaluating responses
to the CAA section 114 ICR, we have
now determined that there are currently
three facilities operating six bonded RS
lines, as compared to 54 RS
manufacturing lines at the time of our
November 2011 proposal (76 FR 72799).
As shown in Table 2 of this preamble,
we have also determined that all RS
lines are equipped with air pollution
control devices and, most importantly,
that emissions from all RS lines are
significantly lower than the existing
MACT standards. Additionally, we were
able to confirm the phase out or
elimination of PF binders which
facilities have achieved by switching to
HAP-free binders in wool fiberglass
manufacturing processes. This is
consistent with our November 2011
proposal where we explained that
‘‘[d]ue to industry’s efforts to replace
phenol-formaldehyde binders more than
95 percent of formaldehyde, phenol and
methanol emissions had been reduced
(or will be by 2012).’’ 76 FR 72803.
As previously explained, CAA section
112(d)(6) requires us to ‘‘review, and
revise as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies), emission
standards promulgated under this
section.’’ We have interpreted CAA
section 112(d)(6) as providing us the
authority ‘‘to review the section 112(d)
standards considering developments in
practices, processes, and control
technologies.’’ 70 FR 2008, April 15,
2008. The agency previously
promulgated a limit for formaldehyde
emissions from RS lines under CAA
112(d) and, thus, has decided that it is
more appropriate to set limits for
formaldehyde emissions from RS lines
under CAA section 112(d)(6) instead of
under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), as
previously proposed.
As also explained in our November
2011 proposal, our technology review,
under CAA section 112(d)(6), focuses on
the identification and evaluation of
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that have
occurred since the 1999 NESHAP was
promulgated. Where we identify
developments to inform our decision of
whether it is ‘‘necessary’’ to revise the
emissions standards, we analyze the
technical feasibility of applying these
developments and the estimated costs,
energy implications, non-air
environmental impacts, as well as
considering the emission reductions.
We also consider the appropriateness of
applying controls to new sources versus
retrofitting existing sources. Based on
our analyses of the available data and
information, we identified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies.
For RS bonded lines, we considered
any of the following to be a
‘‘development’’:
• Any add-on control technology or
other equipment that was not
considered during development of the
original MACT standards.
• Any improvements in the
performance of any add-on control
technology or other equipment (that
were identified and considered during
development of the original MACT
standards) that could result in
additional emissions reduction.
• Any work practice or operational
procedure to reduce emissions that was
not identified or considered during
development of the original MACT
standards.
• Any process changes or pollution
prevention alternatives that could be
broadly applied to the industry and that
was not identified or considered during
development of the original MACT
standards.
• Any significant changes in the cost
(including cost effectiveness) of
applying controls (including controls
the EPA considered during the
development of the original MACT
standards).
In addition to reviewing the responses
to the ICR, we reviewed facility
operating permits and searched the
EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse (RBLC) in our
investigation of developments in
practices, processes, or control
technologies for RS lines at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities.1
As shown in Table 2 of this preamble
above, various processes on RS lines are
equipped with air pollution control
devices as compared to at the time of
the promulgation of the 1999 MACT. As
also previously explained, current
formaldehyde emissions are well below
the 1999 levels for two reasons:
(1) Almost all bonded lines have
replaced the older PF resins with nonPF resins. These reduced the source
category formaldehyde emissions by
approximately 95 percent:
1 The EPA established the RBLC to provide a
central database of air pollution technology
information (including technologies required in
source-specific permits) to promote the sharing of
information on control technologies among
regulatory agencies. The RBLC contains over 5,000
air pollution control permit determinations made
by states, local, and tribal agencies. Control
technologies, classified as Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT), Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), or Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) apply to stationary sources
depending on whether the sources are existing or
new, and on the size, age, and location of the
facility. BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT)
are determined on a case-by-case basis, usually by
state or local permitting agencies.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(2) Improvements in control
technology being used have reduced
emissions on the remaining lines that
still use PF resins.
In light of the most notably significant
reduction of formaldehyde emissions,
we are, thus, proposing to conclude that
there are developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for RS lines under CAA
section 112(d)(6).
B. What are the proposed rule
requirements for methanol emissions
from bonded RS lines?
We are proposing to establish
emission standards for methanol
emissions from combined fiber/
collection, curing, and cooling processes
on new and existing bonded RS lines at
wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities
based on our evaluation of the data
submitted in response to the ICR
discussed above. These proposed
standards differ from the methanol
limits proposed in April 2013 and
November 2014 under CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3). As previously
explained, we did not finalize those
proposed standards based on comments
we received on our various proposals,
indicating that our proposals were
premised on questionable data given
industry changes since collection of the
data. In addition, as previously
explained, we issued and collected
additional data that is representative of
current industry operations under an
ICR subsequent to promulgation of our
July 29, 2015, final rule. The revised
limits proposed in this action are based
on data received in response to the
recent ICR discussed above.
C. What are the proposed rule
requirements for phenol emissions from
bonded RS lines?
We are proposing work practice
standards for phenol emissions from
combined fiber/collection, curing, and
cooling processes on new and existing
bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities under CAA
section 112(h). In order to promulgate a
work practice standard in lieu of an
emission standard, the EPA must
demonstrate that measurement of
emissions is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.
In the case of bonded RS lines, our
review of more recent CAA section 114
test data indicated that over 60 percent
of the test results were values showing
that phenol emissions in the exhaust gas
stream were below the detection limit of
EPA Method 318. This proposal
represents a change from the standards
for phenol emissions from bonded RS
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
lines that were proposed in April 2013
and November 2014.
We regard situations where, as here,
the majority of measurements are below
detection limits as measurements that
are not ‘‘technologically practicable’’
within the meaning of CAA section
112(h). We reasoned that ‘‘application of
measurement methodologies’’ under
CAA section 112(h) 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). We further explained
that unreliable measurements raise
issues of practicability, feasibility, and
enforceability. Additionally, we posited
that the application of measurement
methodology 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.
This proposal to establish a work
practice standard for phenol differs from
previous proposals where emission
limits were proposed for phenol because
the EPA has concluded that the data
that supported setting emission limits in
previous proposals is no longer valid.
We are seeking comments on only
these issues or aspects of requirements
that are being presented in this notice.
We are not reopening any other aspects
of the July 29, 2015, final rule and thus,
are not soliciting comments on them.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. What are the proposed rule
amendments resulting from our
technology review and our proposed
decisions?
A. What are the results and proposed
decisions for formaldehyde emissions
from RS lines based on our technology
review?
We are proposing to readopt the
current 1.2 pound per ton (lb/ton) glass
pulled emissions limits for
formaldehyde from combined fiber/
collection, curing, and cooling processes
on existing, new, and reconstructed
bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities under CAA
section 112(d)(6) as part of our
technology review. Based on the
technology review conducted for the
bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities, we have
determined that emissions are well
controlled on bonded RS line processes.
As previously explained, our evaluation
of the ICR also led us to conclude that
actual formaldehyde emissions from RS
lines at all wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities are significantly
lower than are allowed under the 1999
NESHAP. We believe that reductions in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
formaldehyde emissions since
promulgation of the 1999 MACT rule
are mainly directly related to
improvements in two areas: (1)
Improvements in control technology
(e.g., improved bag materials,
replacement of older baghouses) and (2)
the use of electrostatic precipitators. We
also note that total formaldehyde
emissions have been significantly
reduced (by approximately 95 percent)
since promulgation of the 1999
NESHAP due primarily to the use of
non-PF binders.
Based on these data and new
information, we evaluated what
formaldehyde emission limit might be
appropriate. The EPA’s approach for
developing the proposed formaldehyde
emission limits for existing and new
bonded RS lines sources under CAA
section 112(d)(6) are explained in the
memorandum titled ‘‘Technology
Review for Formaldehyde Emitted from
Rotary Spin Lines,’’ which is available
in the docket for this proposed action.
Data and information presented in this
memorandum could support amended
limits of 0.23 lb/ton glass pulled for
existing sources and 0.24 lb/ton glass
pulled for new sources. Further,
according to the emissions data
collected from the ICR, all wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities
operating bonded RS lines would be
able to meet these emission limits, given
that the ICR suggests that the
formaldehyde emissions from RS lines
are much lower than the current MACT
standard. Therefore, these limits would
not require additional HAP emission
controls or limits for other equipment or
process. In addition, if adopted,
regulated sources would not be
expected to incur any additional costs.
However, we are not proposing to
lower the formaldehyde limits, and are
instead proposing to readopt the current
limits. This is because, as previously
explained, the source category has
already achieved approximately 95percent reduction in formaldehyde
emissions due to the replacement of the
PF binders with non-PF binders, and
which, as explained below, results in
major sources becoming area sources.
We also believe that the industry trend
will likely result in the replacement of
PF binders completely and, thus, view
the lowering of standards as likely
penalizing sources that have been
slower in embracing the industry trend.
As also previously explained, our
review of the ICR indicated that all
bonded RS lines are equipped with air
pollution control devices as compared
to the time of promulgation of the 1999
MACT standards, and that these various
control technologies have resulted in
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40975
significantly lower emissions than the
existing MACT standards. We believe
that sources will not uninstall these
control technologies at this stage and,
thus, that the lower emissions remain
somewhat assured even without our
lowering of the existing MACT
standards.
As part of the technology review, we
also considered mandating the use of
non-PF binders for lines currently using
them, and/or mandating the use of nonPF binders for all bonded lines. We are
not proposing this option, however,
because, as explained in our April 15,
2013, proposal, facilities cease to be
subject to the major source standards
once they phase out the use of PF
binders. ‘‘A facility that does not use
phenol-formaldehyde binders does not
manufacture a bonded product, and
therefore does not have a rotary spin
manufacturing line or a flame
attenuation manufacturing line as
defined in the NESHAP. If the facility
does not have a rotary spin
manufacturing line or a flame
attenuation manufacturing line it does
not meet the definition of wool
fiberglass manufacturing facility and
therefore, would no longer be subject to
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
NESHAP,’’ 78 FR 22375, April 15, 2013.
As also previously explained, industry
continues to actively engage in the
phase-out of PF binders and have
achieved approximately 95-percent
reduction in formaldehyde emissions as
a result. We also believe this industry
trend will continue given industry
indications that non-PF binders are
actually less expensive than PF binders.
Therefore, cost considerations will
move the industry in this direction
without the need for regulation.
We also note that for some products,
customer specifications preclude the
use of any currently available non-PF
binders. If PF binders were banned,
these products would likely no longer
be produced.
We are specifically requesting
comment on the proposed readoption of
the current formaldehyde limit rather
than setting new limits based on
information and data submitted under
the ICR.
B. What are the proposed requirements
for methanol emissions from RS lines?
Based on the new information and
data that the agency received pursuant
to the ICR, we are proposing to establish
limits for methanol emissions from
combined fiber/collection, curing, and
cooling processes on existing, new, and
reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
40976
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
review of the test data collected under
Part 2 of the ICR identified that
approximately 60 percent of the
concentration values were reported as
below the detection limit of EPA
Method 318 (Extractive Fourier
Transform Infrared (FTIR) Method for
Measurement of Emissions from the
Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass
Industries). Considering statistical
validity, we concluded that, in cases
where at least 55 percent of the test data
are below the detection limit of the
respective test method, it is not feasible
to prescribe or enforce an emission
standard for phenol from RS lines.
Under CAA section 112(h), we are
instead proposing a work practice that
represents MACT.
To identify an appropriate work
practice standard for phenol, the EPA
reviewed the current NESHAP
requirements regarding testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping of resins
and binders used in manufacturing wool
fiberglass products. The EPA also
discussed possible phenol work practice
standards with industry representatives.
Because of difficulties in measuring
phenol, we cannot develop numerical
emission limits; however, we believe
that a requirement to establish the freephenol content of the binder resin used
during the compliance demonstration
for formaldehyde and methanol and the
associated recordkeeping requirements
for resin shipments and binder
formulations represents MACT for
TABLE 3—PROPOSED METHANOL
phenol. Consequently, we are proposing
EMISSION LIMITS (lb/ton OF GLASS to require owners or operators to
PULLED) FOR RS LINES
establish the free-phenol content of the
binder resin used during the
New and
formaldehyde and methanol compliance
Existing sources
reconstructed
demonstration based on vendor
sources
specifications, and to require
1.06 .......................................
0.65 recordkeeping of the free-phenol
contents of each resin shipment
The emission limits for methanol in
received and each resin used in binder
this proposed action, if finalized, would formulation. We are also proposing to
codify the level of emissions currently
revise the emission standards specified
being achieved on RS line processes by
in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(9) to require that
add-on control devices (e.g., gas
owners or operators must not use a resin
scrubbers, thermal oxidizers).
in binder formulations that contains a
This proposal differs from and
higher free-phenol content than they
modifies our prior proposals. Details
established during the initial or 5-year
regarding previously proposed methanol compliance demonstrations for
emission limits can be found in the
formaldehyde and methanol.
April 2013 (78 FR 22387) and November
This proposal differs from and
2014 (79 FR 68029) proposals.
modifies our prior proposals. Details
regarding previously proposed phenol
C. What are the proposed requirements
emission limits can be found in the
for phenol emissions from RS lines?
April 2013 (78 FR 22387) and November
We are proposing to establish work
2014 (79 FR 68029) proposals.
practice standards for phenol emissions
D. What compliance dates are we
from combined fiber/collection, curing,
proposing?
and cooling processes on existing, new,
and reconstructed bonded RS lines at
We are proposing that wool fiberglass
wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities
manufacturing facilities that operate
under CAA section 112(h). The EPA’s
bonded RS lines that commenced
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
To determine the MACT floor for
methanol, we applied the 99-percent
upper predictive limit (UPL) method to
the best-performing five sources in the
test data collected under Part 2 of the
ICR. The UPL analysis is explained in
the memorandum titled ‘‘Development
of Proposed Emission Limits for
Methanol Emissions from Rotary Spin
Lines in the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Category,’’ which
is available in the docket for this
proposed action. We considered
beyond-the-floor options for methanol
for all combined collection and curing
operation designs as required by CAA
section 112(d)(2). However, we are not
proposing any limits based on the
beyond-the-floor analyses for methanol
for these sources because of the
potential adverse impacts of additional
controls, including the cost of control
devices, non-air environmental impacts,
and energy implications associated with
use of these additional controls. The
beyond-the-floor analysis is presented
in the memorandum titled ‘‘Control
Costs for Rotary Spin Lines,’’ which is
available in the docket for this proposed
action. Table 3 of this preamble presents
the proposed methanol emission limits
for the combined fiber collection/
formation, curing, and cooling processes
on existing, new, and reconstructed RS
lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
construction or reconstruction on or
before August 29, 2017 must
demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this subpart no later
than 2 years after the effective date of
this rule. Affected sources that
commenced construction or
reconstruction after August 29, 2017
must demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this subpart no later
than the effective date of the rule or
upon start-up, whichever is later. CAA
section 112(i)(3) requires that existing
sources must comply as expeditiously
as practicable, but no later than 3 years
after promulgation of standards under
CAA section 112(d). (‘‘Section
112(i)(3)’s three-year maximum
compliance period applies generally to
any emissions standard . . .
promulgated under [section 112].’’ Ass’n
of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d
667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). This proposal
reflects our belief that sources would
need this amount of time to comply
with the various proposed requirements
and is a result of our review of the more
recent information and data that these
proposed requirements are based on.
For instance, the proposed work
practice standards for phenol, which
call for vendor specifications, would
likely require vendor bids and
selections as well as time to establish
the free-phenol content of binder resin
and the likely institution of new
practices to address the record keeping
requirements when finalized.
V. What other changes are we
proposing to the NESHAP in this
action?
In this action, we are also proposing
amendments to the incinerator
operating limits specified in 40 CFR
63.1382(c)(6) to clearly indicate that the
subsection applies to cooling emissions.
Incinerators would be required to
control the final formaldehyde,
methanol, and, where applicable,
phenol emissions from forming, curing,
and cooling processes on both FA and
bonded RS lines.
We are proposing to allow owners or
operators that conducted emissions tests
in 2016 in response to the EPA’s ICR to
submit those performance test results to
demonstrate initial compliance with the
new methanol emission limits for RS
lines, rather than conducting additional
tests.
VI. What are the proposed amendments
applicable to FA lines?
We are proposing the following three
subcategories for FA lines based on
recent information indicating that there
are technical or design differences that
distinguish sources that utilize FA lines:
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
(1) Aerospace and Air Filtration
(Aerospace); (2) Heating, Ventilation,
and Air Conditioning (HVAC); and (3)
Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM). (In establishing standards under
CAA section 112(d), the EPA may
‘‘distinguish among classes, types, and
sizes of sources within a category or
sub-category.’’ CAA section 112(d)(1).
NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir.
2007)). We are also proposing revisions
to the July 2015 final rule formaldehyde,
methanol, and phenol limits to reflect
these new subcategories.2
In March 2017, the EPA received
notification from Johns Manville that
several of the emission test reports the
company submitted to the EPA to
support development of the 2015
NESHAP emission limits for FA lines
contained errors in the analytical results
for formaldehyde, methanol, and
phenol. According to Johns Manville
and their testing contractor, the errors
caused the test run-level values for
pollutant mass to be biased low,
particularly for methanol and phenol
(i.e., actual pollutant emissions were
higher than reported). Johns Manville
provided the corrected reports for the
facilities affected by the miscalculations
to the EPA after promulgation of the
July 29, 2015, final rule. Upon further
review of the data, including the
rationale for setting the 2015 NESHAP
emission limits, the EPA has
determined that there are several
technical questions regarding the 2015
NESHAP emission limits that cannot be
resolved using the corrected reports
provided by Johns Manville.
Consequently, in May 2017 Johns
Manville provided the EPA with more
recent test data for FA lines that were
collected in 2016 and 2017.
The EPA’s review of the new test data
confirmed that all FA line emissions
points at each facility were sampled and
pollutant concentrations were measured
using test methods allowed by 40 CFR
63, subpart NNN (EPA Methods 316 and
318 for formaldehyde, EPA Methods 308
and 318 for methanol, and EPA Method
318 for phenol). However, the EPA
identified that the phenol emissions
from certain FA lines were 1 to 2 orders
of magnitude higher than the phenol
emissions from other FA lines. The EPA
40977
discussed this observation with Johns
Manville representatives who
acknowledged that they use different
binder formulations on certain FA lines
to manufacture specific types of wool
fiberglass products, and that the
different binder formulations result in
higher or lower phenol emissions,
depending on the composition of the
binder. As previously explained, in
cases where we identify differences in
size, class, or type that significantly
affect emissions levels, we may create
subcategories when setting emission
limits. This is the case here, where the
phenol content of the resins is different
based on the product type. The industry
identified three types of FA line
products: (1) Aerospace; (2) HVAC; and
(3) OEM. The type of product
determines the phenol content of the
resin and, ultimately, the level of
phenol emissions.
Based on the EPA’s review of the new
emissions data, the EPA is proposing
standards for the three subcategories of
FA line products as shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4—PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR FA LINES
[lb/ton]
Existing
sources
Subcategory
Pollutant
Aerospace .....................................................................
Formaldehyde ...............................................................
Methanol .......................................................................
Formaldehyde ...............................................................
Methanol .......................................................................
Phenol ...........................................................................
Formaldehyde ...............................................................
Methanol .......................................................................
Phenol ...........................................................................
HVAC ............................................................................
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
OEM ..............................................................................
For the Aerospace subcategory, we are
proposing a work practice standard that
represents MACT for phenol because
approximately 80 percent of the
available phenol data are below the
detection limit of the respective test
method. Consistent with our proposed
work practice for phenol emissions from
RS lines, we are proposing to require
owners or operators to establish the freephenol content of the binder resin used
during the formaldehyde and methanol
compliance demonstration for the
Aerospace subcategory, based on vendor
specifications, and to require
recordkeeping of the free-phenol
contents of each resin shipment
received and each resin used in binder
formulation. We are also proposing to
revise the emission standards specified
in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(9) to require that
owners or operators must not use a resin
in binder formulations that contain a
higher free-phenol content than they
established during the initial or 5-year
compliance demonstrations for
formaldehyde and methanol.
We are specifically requesting
comments and supporting process and
emissions data related to the proposed
revisions to the promulgated emissions
limits for FA lines.
2 On July 27, 2017, the EPA published a direct
final rule to extend the compliance date for the FA
lines in order to provide time for the EPA to review
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental
and Economic Impacts
A. How many sources are affected?
Based on the responses to the 2016
ICR, only three wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities continue to use
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
26.25
8.69
2.81
7.29
0.38
4.66
5.32
27.19
New and
reconstructed
sources
16.83
3.98
2.38
1.44
0.38
2.60
0.98
20.69
RS lines to manufacture a bonded
product. These three facilities operate
six bonded RS lines that would be
affected by the revised emission limits.
The EPA is not currently aware of any
planned or potential new or
reconstructed bonded RS lines.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The proposed standards codify and
maintain the emissions reductions
achieved by the industry due primarily
to the phase-out of PF binders since
promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP.
Based on the test data received in
response to the CAA section 114 ICR, all
facilities with bonded RS lines currently
meet the proposed emission limits for
formaldehyde and methanol. Therefore,
the proposed emission limits for
new emissions data and revise the standards where
appropriate.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
40978
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
formaldehyde and methanol will not
result in further HAP emissions
reductions. Also, we do not anticipate
secondary environmental impacts from
the proposed amendments to the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP
because owners or operators will not
need to install additional control
devices to meet the proposed standards.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
C. What are the cost impacts?
Because the existing facilities will not
need to install add-on control devices or
implement process modifications to
comply with the proposed emissions
standards, and because the EPA is
allowing facilities to use the test reports
submitted in response to the ICR Part 2
to demonstrate initial compliance with
the proposed emission limits, the three
facilities subject to the proposed
emission limits will not incur increased
costs for installing or upgrading
emissions control systems. However, the
three facilities subject to this proposal
will each incur costs ($4,377/year/
facility, 2016 dollars) related to the
submission of initial notifications and
notifications of compliance status for
the formaldehyde and methanol
emission limits, and additional
monitoring and recordkeeping activities
related to the phenol work practice
standard.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses evaluate
changes in market prices and output
levels. If changes in market prices and
output levels in the directly affected
markets are significant, impacts on other
markets are also examined. Both the
magnitude of costs needed to comply
with the rule and the distribution of
these costs among affected facilities can
have a role in determining how the
market will change in response to a rule.
The proposed standards for RS lines
at wool fiberglass facilities do not
impose control costs or additional
testing costs on affected facilities.
However, affected facilities will have
reporting requirements (i.e., an initial
notification and a notification of
compliance status) associated with the
proposed formaldehyde and methanol
emission limits and monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements associated
with the phenol work practice standard.
We estimate that the total annual
burden for each facility associated with
the proposed monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements to be
approximately $4,377/year/facility, and
the total annual cost of this proposal is
approximately $13,131/year (2016
dollars). The economic impacts
associated with the costs of this
proposal are quite low; each affected
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
firm is estimated to experience an
impact of less than 0.01 percent of their
revenues.
E. What are the benefits?
Based on the data collected under ICR
Part 2, the actual formaldehyde
emissions from all bonded RS lines are
lower than the level allowed under the
1999 NESHAP. Although the proposed
standards do not achieve further
emissions reductions, the proposed
emission limits for formaldehyde and
methanol ensure that the emissions
reductions that have been achieved
since promulgation of the original 40
CFR 63, subpart NNN in 1999 will
persist into the future and that
emissions will not increase.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This proposed 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)
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
PRA. OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities
contained in the existing regulations
and has assigned OMB control number
1160.10. This action does not change
the information collection requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this proposed action will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. None of the three entities
affected by this proposal are small
entities, using the Small Business
Administration definition of small
business for the affected NAICS code
(327993), which is 1,500 employees for
the ultimate parent company.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This proposed action does not contain
any 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
proposed action imposes no enforceable
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
duty on any state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed action does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This proposed
action would revise the existing
emissions limit for formaldehyde and
establish new emission limits for
methanol and a work practice standard
for phenol emissions. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
proposed action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This proposed action
is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed 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 proposed action 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 NNN, we
conducted searches for EPA Methods 5,
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
318, 320, 29, and 0061 of 40 CFR part
60, Appendix A. These searches did not
identify any VCS that were potentially
applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA
reference methods.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
It does not establish an environmental
health or safety standard. This action
would make corrections and updates to
an existing protocol for assessing the
precision and accuracy of alternative
test methods to ensure they are
comparable to the methods otherwise
required; thus, it does not modify or
affect the impacts to human health or
the environment of any standards for
which it may be used.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wool
fiberglass manufacturing.
Dated: August 18, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code
of the Federal Regulations 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.
Subpart NNN—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
2. Section 63.1381 is amended by
adding the definitions, in alphabetical
order, for ‘‘Aerospace and Air Filtration
Products,’’ ‘‘Heating, Ventilation, and
Air Conditioning (HVAC) Products,’’
and ‘‘Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM) Products’’ to read as follows:
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
■
§ 63.1381
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Aerospace and air filtration products
means bonded wool fiberglass
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
insulation manufactured for the thermal
and acoustical insulation of aircraft and/
or the air filtration markets.
*
*
*
*
*
Heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) products means
bonded wool fiberglass insulation
manufactured for use in HVAC systems
for the distribution of air or for thermal
and acoustical insulation of HVAC
distribution lines.
*
*
*
*
*
Original equipment manufacturer
(OEM) products means bonded wool
fiberglass insulation manufactured for
OEM entities that fabricate the
insulation into parts used as thermal or
acoustical insulation in products
including, but not limited to,
appliances, refrigeration units, and
office interior equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 63.1382 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(8)(i), and
(c)(9) to read as follows:
§ 63.1382
Emission standards.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(6) The owner or operator must
operate each incinerator used to comply
with the emissions limits for rotary spin
or flame attenuation lines specified in
Table 2 to this subpart such that any 3hour block average temperature in the
firebox does not fall below the average
established during the performance test
as specified in § 63.1384.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) * * *
(i) The owner or operator must initiate
corrective action within 1 hour when
the monitored process parameter
level(s) is outside the limit(s)
established during the performance test
as specified in § 63.1384 for the process
modification(s) used to comply with the
emissions limits for rotary spin or flame
attenuation lines specified in Table 2 to
this subpart, and complete corrective
actions in a timely manner according to
the procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) The owner or operator must use a
resin in the formulation of binder such
that the free-formaldehyde and freephenol contents of the resin used do not
exceed the respective ranges contained
in the specification for the resin used
during the performance test as specified
in § 63.1384.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 63.1383 is amended by
revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h), (i)(1), and
(j) to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 63.1383
40979
Monitoring requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) The owner or operator who uses
an incinerator to comply with the
emissions limits for rotary spin or flame
attenuation lines specified in Table 2 to
this subpart shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a monitoring
device that continuously measures and
records the operating temperature in the
firebox of each incinerator.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) The owner or operator who uses
a wet scrubbing control device to
control formaldehyde and methanol
emissions must install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate monitoring
devices that continuously monitor and
record the gas pressure drop across each
scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow
rate to each scrubber according to the
procedures in the operations,
maintenance, and monitoring plan. The
pressure drop monitor must be certified
by its manufacturer to be accurate
within ±250 pascals (±1 inch water
gauge) over its operating range, and the
flow rate monitor must be certified by
its manufacturer to be accurate within
±5 percent over its operating range. The
owner or operator must also
continuously monitor and record the
feed rate of any chemical(s) added to the
scrubbing liquid.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(1) The owner or operator who uses
process modifications to control
formaldehyde and methanol emissions
must establish a correlation between
formaldehyde and methanol emissions
and the process parameter(s) to be
monitored.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) The owner or operator must
monitor and record the freeformaldehyde and free-phenol content
of each resin shipment received and of
each resin used in the formulation of
binder.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 63.1384 is amended by
revising introductory paragraph (a),
(a)(3), (a)(9), and introductory paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
§ 63.1384
Performance test requirements.
(a) The owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
conduct a performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limits in § 63.1382.
Compliance is demonstrated when the
emission rate of the pollutant is equal to
or less than each of the applicable
emission limits in § 63.1382. The owner
or operator shall conduct the
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
40980
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
performance test according to the
procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
A and in this section. If the owner or
operator conducted an emissions test in
2016 according to the procedures
specified in § 63.1384(a)(9) and
§ 63.1385 in response to the EPA’s
Information Collection Request, the
owner or operator can use the results of
the emissions test to demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission limits for
rotary spin lines specified in Table 2 to
this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) During each performance test, the
owner or operator must monitor and
record the glass pull rate for each glassmelting furnace and, if different, the
glass pull rate for each rotary spin
manufacturing line and flame
attenuation manufacturing line. Record
the glass pull rate every 15 minutes
during any performance test required by
this subpart and determine the
arithmetic average of the recorded
measurements for each test run and
calculate the average of the three test
runs. If a rotary spin or flame
attenuation line shares one or more
emissions points with another rotary
spin or flame attenuation line(s), owners
or operators can conduct the
performance test while each of the
process lines with the shared emissions
point(s) is operating as specified in
paragraph (a)(8) of this section, rather
than testing each of the shared lines
separately. In these cases, owners or
operators must use the combined glass
pull rate for the process lines with the
shared emissions point(s) to
demonstrate compliance with the
emissions limits specified in Table 2 to
this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) The owner or operator of each
rotary spin manufacturing line and
flame attenuation manufacturing line
regulated by this subpart must conduct
performance tests using the resin with
the highest free-formaldehyde content.
During the performance test of each
rotary spin manufacturing line and
flame attenuation manufacturing line
regulated by this subpart, the owner or
operator shall monitor and record the
free-formaldehyde and free-phenol
contents of the resin, the binder
formulation used, and the product LOI
and density.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) To determine compliance with the
emission limits specified in Table 2 to
this subpart, for formaldehyde and
methanol 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:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Section 63.1385 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(8) as follows:
§ 63.1385
Test methods and procedures.
(a) * * *
(8) Method contained in appendix B
of this subpart for the determination of
the free-formaldehyde content of resin.
The owner or operator shall use vendor
specifications to determine the freephenol content of resin.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Section 63.1386 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(2)(v) to read as
follows:
§ 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The free-formaldehyde and freephenol contents of each binder batch
and the LOI and density for each
product manufactured on a rotary spin
manufacturing line or flame attenuation
manufacturing line subject to the
provisions of this subpart, and the freeformaldehyde and free-phenol contents
of each resin shipment received and of
each resin used in the binder
formulation;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Table 2 to subpart NNN of part 63
is amended by:
■ a. Revising entries 7 and 8;
■ b. Redesignating entries 9 through 13
as entries 11 through 15;
■ c. Adding new entries 9 and 10;
■ d. Revising newly redesignated entries
13 through 15;
■ e. Adding new entries 16 through 19;
and
■ g. Adding new footnote 5.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—EMISSIONS LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE DATES
Your emission limits are: 1
And you must comply by: 2
If your source is a:
And you commenced construction:
*
*
7. Rotary spin manufacturing line
*
*
*
On or before March 31, 1997 ....... 1.2 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled 5.
After March 31, 1997 .................... 0.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled 5.
On or before November 25, 2011
0.32 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled.
1.06 lb methanol per ton of glass
pulled.
After November 25, 2011 ............. 0.24 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled.
0.65 lb methanol per ton of glass
pulled.
After March 31, 1997 but on or 7.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of
before November 25, 2011.
glass pulled 5.
*
June 14, 2002.
On or before March 31, 1997 .......
June 14, 2002.
8. Rotary spin manufacturing line
9. Rotary spin manufacturing line
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
10. Rotary spin manufacturing line
11. Flame
facturing
uct.
12. Flame
facturing
13. Flame
facturing
14. Flame
facturing
attenuation line manua heavy-density prodattenuation line manua pipe product.
attenuation line manua pipe product.
attenuation line manuan Aerospace product.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
After March 31, 1997 but before
November 25, 2011.
On or before November 25, 2011
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled 5.
6.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled 5.
26.25 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled .
8.69 lb methanol per ton of glass
pulled.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
*
June 14, 1999.
Date 3 years after publication of
the final rule.
Date of publication of the final
rule.4
June 14, 1999.
June 14, 1999.
Date 1 year after publication of
the final rule.
29AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 29, 2017 / Proposed Rules
40981
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART NNN OF PART 63—EMISSIONS LIMITS AND COMPLIANCE DATES—Continued
If your source is a:
And you commenced construction:
Your emission limits are: 1
And you must comply by: 2
15. Flame attenuation line manufacturing an Aerospace product.
After November 25, 2011 .............
Date of publication of the final
rule.4
16. Flame attenuation line manufacturing an HVAC product.
On or before November 25, 2011
17. Flame attenuation line manufacturing an HVAC product.
After November 25, 2011 .............
18. Flame attenuation line manufacturing an OEM product.
On or before November 25, 2011
19. Flame attenuation line manufacturing an OEM product.
After November 25, 2011 .............
16.83 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled .
3.98 lb methanol per ton of glass
pulled.
2.81 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled .
7.29 lb methanol per ton of glass
pulled .
0.38 lb phenol per ton of glass
pulled.
2.38 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled.
1.44 lb methanol per ton of glass
pulled.
0.38 lb phenol per ton of glass
pulled.
4.66 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled.
5.32 lb methanol per ton of glass
pulled.
27.19 lb phenol per ton of glass
pulled.
2.60 lb formaldehyde per ton of
glass pulled.
0.98 lb methanol per ton of glass
pulled.
20.69 lb phenol per ton of glass
pulled.
5 This
*
*
Date 1 year after publication of
the final rule.
Date of publication of the final
rule.4
Date 1 year after publication of
the final rule.
Date of publication of the final
rule.4
limit does not apply after date 3 years after publication of the final rule.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–18211 Filed 8–28–17; 8:45 am]
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:07 Aug 28, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\29AUP1.SGM
29AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40970-40981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18211]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-9967-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT13
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing; Rotary Spin Lines Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
proposing amendments to previous proposals to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category. In the July 29, 2015, final rulemaking,
the EPA deferred action on previously proposed formaldehyde, methanol
and phenol emission limits from rotary spin (RS) lines at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities. In this action, the EPA is
proposing to readopt the existing emission limits for formaldehyde, to
establish emission limits for methanol, and to establish a work
practice standard for phenol emissions from bonded RS lines at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities. In addition, the EPA is proposing
amendments to the emission limits promulgated on July 29, 2015, for
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol from flame attenuation (FA) lines at
wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. The EPA is only taking
comments on the specific proposed requirements and revisions set forth
in this proposed rulemaking, which are based on information contained
in this proposal. The EPA is not taking comment on any aspect of
previous rulemakings, including the November 25, 2011, April 15, 2013,
and November 13, 2014, proposals.
DATES: The EPA must receive written comments on this proposed rule on
or before October 13, 2017.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by September 5,
2017, then we will hold a public hearing on September 13, 2017. The
last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the public hearing will
be September 11, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1042, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or withdrawn from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Public Hearing. If a hearing is requested, it will be held at the
EPA WJC East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20004. If a public hearing is requested, then we will provide
additional details about the public hearing on our Web site at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wool-fiberglass-manufacturing-national-emissions-standards. To request a hearing, to
register to speak at a hearing, or to inquire if a hearing will be
held, please contact Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541-1063 or by email at
stclair.aimee@epa.gov. The EPA does not intend to publish any future
notices in the Federal Register regarding a public hearing on this
proposed action and directs all inquiries regarding a hearing to the
Web site and contact person identified above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Mr. Brian Storey, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-5450; email
address: storey.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The EPA has established a docket for
this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. All documents
in the docket are listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1042. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any
[[Page 40971]]
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Public Hearing. If requested by September 5, 2017, a public hearing
will be held on September 13, 2017 at the EPA WJC East Building, 1201
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. If a public hearing is
requested, then we will provide additional details about the public
hearing on our Web site at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wool-fiberglass-manufacturing-national-emissions-standards.
In addition, you may contact Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541-1063 or email
at stclair.aimee@epa.gov with public hearing inquiries. The last day to
pre-register to speak at a hearing, if one is held, will be September
11, 2017. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the
hearing at the hearing registration desk, although preferences on
speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. Please note that
registration requests received before the hearing will be confirmed by
the EPA via email.
The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who
arrive and register. If the hearing is held at a U.S. governmental
facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared
to show valid picture identification to the security staff to gain
access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by
Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal
facilities. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska, American
Samoa, California, Guam, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Texas, Virgin Islands, Virginia, or the state of Washington,
you must present an additional form of identification to enter the
federal building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification
include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's
licenses, and military identification cards. In addition, you will need
to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with
you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this
property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in
the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and
demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security
reasons.
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:
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CD-ROM Compact Disc Read-Only Memory
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FA lame attenuation
FR Federal Register
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
HAP hazardous air pollutants
ICR information collection request
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
lb/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRDC Natural Resource Defense Council
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PF phenol-formaldehyde
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RS rotary spin
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
tpy tons per year
Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
Table of Contents
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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the regulatory history for wool fiberglass
manufacturing?
C. What is the purpose of this proposal?
III. What are the proposed rule requirements for RS lines and what
is our rationale?
A. What are the proposed rule requirements for formaldehyde
emissions from bonded RS lines?
B. What are the proposed rule requirements for methanol
emissions from bonded RS lines?
C. What are the proposed rule requirements for phenol emissions
from bonded RS lines?
IV. What are the proposed rule amendments resulting from our
technology review and our proposed decisions?
A. What are the results and proposed decisions for formaldehyde
emissions from RS lines based on our technology review?
B. What are the proposed requirements for methanol emissions
from RS lines?
C. What are the proposed requirements for phenol emissions from
RS lines?
D. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. What other changes are we proposing to the NESHAP in this action?
VI. What are the proposed amendments applicable to FA lines?
VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts
A. How many sources are affected?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 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 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
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table
1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding the entities likely to be
affected by this proposed action.
[[Page 40972]]
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing... Subpart NNN........... 327993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities are not affected by this proposed action.
In 1992, the EPA defined the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category as any facility engaged in producing wool fiberglass from
sand, feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, or any
other materials. In the wool fiberglass manufacturing process, molten
glass is formed into fibers that are bonded with an organic resin to
create a wool-like material that is used as thermal or acoustical
insulation. The category includes, but is not limited to, the following
processes: Glass-melting furnace, marble forming, refining, fiber
forming, binder application, curing, and cooling. Facilities produce
bonded building insulation using an RS manufacturing line, and bonded
pipe insulation and other heavy-density products using an FA
manufacturing line. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of the proposed amendments, contact the person listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
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 action is available on the Internet. A redline version of the
regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this
action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-1042). Following publication in the Federal Register, the
EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key
technical documents at this same Web site. Information on the overall
residual risk and technology review (RTR) program is available at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
For comments on this proposal, do not submit information containing
CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes
information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the
public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not
contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.). Section 112 of the CAA establishes a comprehensive regulatory
process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from
stationary sources. In the first stage, after the EPA has identified
categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA
section 112(b), CAA section 112(d) requires us to promulgate
technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those
that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more
of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major
sources, the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of
emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy
requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts) and
are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) standards. Additionally, CAA section 112(h) allows the agency to
adopt a work practice standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard
only if it is ``not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to
prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control of a hazardous
air pollutant.'' This phrase is defined as applying where ``the
Administrator determines that the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.'' CAA section 112(h)(1) and
(2).
The EPA is required to 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. CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this review,
the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir.
2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667
(D.C. Cir. 2013).
In this action, the EPA is proposing to complete a technology
review for RS lines in accordance with section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. In
addition, the EPA is proposing to amend certain emission limits
promulgated on July 29, 2015, as part of the RTR for the standards for
FA lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
B. What is the regulatory history for wool fiberglass manufacturing?
The EPA promulgated the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP on
June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695). The 1999 NESHAP, which is codified at 40
CFR part 63, subpart NNN, includes emissions standards for formaldehyde
emissions from new and existing RS lines. On July 29, 2015, we
published the final rule amendments to the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP resulting from our completion of certain aspects
of the CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk review and the CAA section
112(d)(6) technology review for that NESHAP RTR. 80 FR 45280.
[[Page 40973]]
Specifically, the July 29, 2015, final rule:
(1) Established a chromium emissions limit for gas-fired, glass-
melting furnaces under CAA section 112(f)(2);
(2) revised the particulate matter limit for gas-fired, glass-
melting furnaces at major sources under CAA section 112(d)(6);
(3) established work practice standards for hydrogen chloride and
hydrogen fluoride emissions from glass-melting furnaces at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(h);
(4) eliminated the use of formaldehyde as a surrogate and
established revised limits for formaldehyde and first-time limits for
methanol and phenol emitted from FA lines under CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and (d)(3);
(5) eliminated FA line subcategories;
(6) removed the exemption for startup and shutdown periods and
established work practice standards that apply during startup and
shutdown periods; and
(7) established a chromium emission limits for both new and
existing gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces at area sources in the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(d)(5).
In the July 2015 rule, we did not finalize proposed emissions
limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions from forming
cooling and collection processes on bonded RS lines under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3). We explained that this decision was based on
comments we received on our various proposals indicating that the
proposed limits likely relied on incorrect data. We explained that we
had issued an Information Collection Request (ICR) under CAA section
114 for purposes of obtaining the requisite data. 80 FR 45293. Since
then, we have received and evaluated responses to the ICR. More
recently, we have received new information and data from a facility
that operates FA lines that cast doubts on information and data that
the agency relied on in promulgating the July 2015 final rule emissions
limits for FA lines.
C. What is the purpose of this proposal?
This notice proposes the following amendments to the NESHAP for the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category:
Readopting formaldehyde emission limits from bonded RS
lines under CAA section 112(d)(6);
Establishing new emission limits for methanol from bonded
RS lines under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3);
Establishing work practice standards for phenol from
bonded RS lines under CAA section 112(h);
Amending the incinerator operating limits to include
cooling emissions from both RS and FA limits under CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3);
Establishing new subcategories of FA lines under CAA
section 112(d)(1);
Establishing new emission limits for formaldehyde,
methanol, and phenol from most of the newly proposed FA line
subcategories under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3); and
Setting work practice standards for phenol from one newly
proposed FA line subcategory under CAA section 112(h).
We are requesting comments on only the specific proposed revisions
to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP that are presented in this
notice. We are not reopening or accepting comment on any other aspect
of the 2015 final rule or prior proposals. Taking final action on the
proposed revisions to the standards for RS lines would complete the
required CAA section 112(d)(6) review for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP.
III. What are the proposed rule requirements for RS lines and what is
our rationale?
A. What are the proposed rule requirements for formaldehyde emissions
from bonded RS lines?
In the July 29, 2015, final rule, we did not finalize the proposed
revisions to the formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions limits
from bonded RS lines based on comments indicating that emission data we
relied on for the proposed limits were not representative of either
contemporaneous operations or emissions from bonded RS lines. We
explained that the proposals were based on emissions and process data
available to the EPA at the time the various proposals were issued, and
since that time, approximately 95 percent of RS lines had undergone
process modifications that involved phasing out the use of a phenol-
formaldehyde (PF) binder and switching to HAP-free binders. We further
explained that we had determined that the product lines continuing to
operate using PF binders are not similar to the tested product lines in
size, end use, production rate, or loss on ignition (LOI) percent. In
sum, we posited that available data did not represent current industry
conditions, most notably, the significant reduction in the use of PF
binders in wool fiberglass manufacturing. We further explained that we
had issued an ICR, pursuant to our authority under CAA section 114, to
wool fiberglass facilities that operate bonded RS lines in order to
obtain updated emissions, process, and control device data for existing
RS manufacturing lines. 80 FR 45293. The first part of the ICR
requested general information regarding RS line process equipment and
control devices. ICR Part 1. Based on the information obtained under
ICR Part 1, the EPA issued the second part of the ICR that required
facilities to conduct emissions testing for formaldehyde, methanol, and
phenol from bonded RS line processes. ICR Part 2. Specifically, ICR
Part 2 required subject facilities to collect stack emissions data from
RS lines during several testing events that represented operations
during multiple seasonal ambient conditions. In response to ICR Part 2,
the EPA received emissions test reports from the Johns Manville, Knauf
Insulation, and Owens Corning facilities. Table 2 of this preamble
summarizes the sampling program conducted under ICR Part 2.
Table 2--Summary of RS Line Test Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Bonded RS line Test dates Sampling locations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johns Manville--Defiance, OH.......... Line 89.................. 6/28/2016, Collection Module A (Venturi
8/24/2016 scrubber 1 outlet).
Cooling table (Venturi
scrubber 2 outlet).
Curing oven (regenerative
thermal oxidizer (RTO)
outlet).
Knauf Insulation--Shelbyville, IN..... Lines 611, 612, 613, and 6/15/2016, Combined exhaust from Lines
614. 8/2/2016 611-614 forming process and
Lines 613 and 614 cooling
process (wet electrostatic
precipitator outlet).
Curing oven (RTO outlet)
Owens Corning--Waxahachie, TX......... Line V1.................. 5/17-18/2016 Forming process (spray
chamber outlet).
Cooling (high-efficiency air
filter outlet).
Curing oven (incinerator
outlet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40974]]
In reviewing and evaluating responses to the CAA section 114 ICR,
we have now determined that there are currently three facilities
operating six bonded RS lines, as compared to 54 RS manufacturing lines
at the time of our November 2011 proposal (76 FR 72799). As shown in
Table 2 of this preamble, we have also determined that all RS lines are
equipped with air pollution control devices and, most importantly, that
emissions from all RS lines are significantly lower than the existing
MACT standards. Additionally, we were able to confirm the phase out or
elimination of PF binders which facilities have achieved by switching
to HAP-free binders in wool fiberglass manufacturing processes. This is
consistent with our November 2011 proposal where we explained that
``[d]ue to industry's efforts to replace phenol-formaldehyde binders
more than 95 percent of formaldehyde, phenol and methanol emissions had
been reduced (or will be by 2012).'' 76 FR 72803.
As previously explained, CAA section 112(d)(6) requires us to
``review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards
promulgated under this section.'' We have interpreted CAA section
112(d)(6) as providing us the authority ``to review the section 112(d)
standards considering developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies.'' 70 FR 2008, April 15, 2008. The agency previously
promulgated a limit for formaldehyde emissions from RS lines under CAA
112(d) and, thus, has decided that it is more appropriate to set limits
for formaldehyde emissions from RS lines under CAA section 112(d)(6)
instead of under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3), as previously proposed.
As also explained in our November 2011 proposal, our technology
review, under CAA section 112(d)(6), focuses on the identification and
evaluation of developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since the 1999 NESHAP was promulgated.
Where we identify developments to inform our decision of whether it is
``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards, we analyze the
technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated
costs, energy implications, non-air environmental impacts, as well as
considering the emission reductions. We also consider the
appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting
existing sources. Based on our analyses of the available data and
information, we identified developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies.
For RS bonded lines, we considered any of the following to be a
``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not considered during development of the original MACT standards.
Any improvements in the performance of any add-on control
technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered
during development of the original MACT standards) that could result in
additional emissions reduction.
Any work practice or operational procedure to reduce
emissions that was not identified or considered during development of
the original MACT standards.
Any process changes or pollution prevention alternatives
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards.
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the responses to the ICR, we reviewed
facility operating permits and searched the EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse (RBLC) in our investigation of developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies for RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA established the RBLC to provide a central database
of air pollution technology information (including technologies
required in source-specific permits) to promote the sharing of
information on control technologies among regulatory agencies. The
RBLC contains over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations
made by states, local, and tribal agencies. Control technologies,
classified as Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), Best
Available Control Technology (BACT), or Lowest Achievable Emission
Rate (LAER) apply to stationary sources depending on whether the
sources are existing or new, and on the size, age, and location of
the facility. BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a
case-by-case basis, usually by state or local permitting agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 2 of this preamble above, various processes on RS
lines are equipped with air pollution control devices as compared to at
the time of the promulgation of the 1999 MACT. As also previously
explained, current formaldehyde emissions are well below the 1999
levels for two reasons:
(1) Almost all bonded lines have replaced the older PF resins with
non-PF resins. These reduced the source category formaldehyde emissions
by approximately 95 percent:
(2) Improvements in control technology being used have reduced
emissions on the remaining lines that still use PF resins.
In light of the most notably significant reduction of formaldehyde
emissions, we are, thus, proposing to conclude that there are
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT standards for RS lines under CAA section
112(d)(6).
B. What are the proposed rule requirements for methanol emissions from
bonded RS lines?
We are proposing to establish emission standards for methanol
emissions from combined fiber/collection, curing, and cooling processes
on new and existing bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities based on our evaluation of the data submitted in response to
the ICR discussed above. These proposed standards differ from the
methanol limits proposed in April 2013 and November 2014 under CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3). As previously explained, we did not finalize
those proposed standards based on comments we received on our various
proposals, indicating that our proposals were premised on questionable
data given industry changes since collection of the data. In addition,
as previously explained, we issued and collected additional data that
is representative of current industry operations under an ICR
subsequent to promulgation of our July 29, 2015, final rule. The
revised limits proposed in this action are based on data received in
response to the recent ICR discussed above.
C. What are the proposed rule requirements for phenol emissions from
bonded RS lines?
We are proposing work practice standards for phenol emissions from
combined fiber/collection, curing, and cooling processes on new and
existing bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities
under CAA section 112(h). In order to promulgate a work practice
standard in lieu of an emission standard, the EPA must demonstrate that
measurement of emissions is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations. In the case of bonded RS lines, our review of
more recent CAA section 114 test data indicated that over 60 percent of
the test results were values showing that phenol emissions in the
exhaust gas stream were below the detection limit of EPA Method 318.
This proposal represents a change from the standards for phenol
emissions from bonded RS
[[Page 40975]]
lines that were proposed in April 2013 and November 2014.
We regard situations where, as here, the majority of measurements
are below detection limits as measurements that are not
``technologically practicable'' within the meaning of CAA section
112(h). We reasoned that ``application of measurement methodologies''
under CAA section 112(h) 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). We further explained that
unreliable measurements raise issues of practicability, feasibility,
and enforceability. Additionally, we posited that the application of
measurement methodology 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. This proposal to establish a work practice
standard for phenol differs from previous proposals where emission
limits were proposed for phenol because the EPA has concluded that the
data that supported setting emission limits in previous proposals is no
longer valid.
We are seeking comments on only these issues or aspects of
requirements that are being presented in this notice. We are not
reopening any other aspects of the July 29, 2015, final rule and thus,
are not soliciting comments on them.
IV. What are the proposed rule amendments resulting from our technology
review and our proposed decisions?
A. What are the results and proposed decisions for formaldehyde
emissions from RS lines based on our technology review?
We are proposing to readopt the current 1.2 pound per ton (lb/ton)
glass pulled emissions limits for formaldehyde from combined fiber/
collection, curing, and cooling processes on existing, new, and
reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities under CAA section 112(d)(6) as part of our technology
review. Based on the technology review conducted for the bonded RS
lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities, we have determined
that emissions are well controlled on bonded RS line processes. As
previously explained, our evaluation of the ICR also led us to conclude
that actual formaldehyde emissions from RS lines at all wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities are significantly lower than are allowed under
the 1999 NESHAP. We believe that reductions in formaldehyde emissions
since promulgation of the 1999 MACT rule are mainly directly related to
improvements in two areas: (1) Improvements in control technology
(e.g., improved bag materials, replacement of older baghouses) and (2)
the use of electrostatic precipitators. We also note that total
formaldehyde emissions have been significantly reduced (by
approximately 95 percent) since promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP due
primarily to the use of non-PF binders.
Based on these data and new information, we evaluated what
formaldehyde emission limit might be appropriate. The EPA's approach
for developing the proposed formaldehyde emission limits for existing
and new bonded RS lines sources under CAA section 112(d)(6) are
explained in the memorandum titled ``Technology Review for Formaldehyde
Emitted from Rotary Spin Lines,'' which is available in the docket for
this proposed action. Data and information presented in this memorandum
could support amended limits of 0.23 lb/ton glass pulled for existing
sources and 0.24 lb/ton glass pulled for new sources. Further,
according to the emissions data collected from the ICR, all wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities operating bonded RS lines would be
able to meet these emission limits, given that the ICR suggests that
the formaldehyde emissions from RS lines are much lower than the
current MACT standard. Therefore, these limits would not require
additional HAP emission controls or limits for other equipment or
process. In addition, if adopted, regulated sources would not be
expected to incur any additional costs.
However, we are not proposing to lower the formaldehyde limits, and
are instead proposing to readopt the current limits. This is because,
as previously explained, the source category has already achieved
approximately 95-percent reduction in formaldehyde emissions due to the
replacement of the PF binders with non-PF binders, and which, as
explained below, results in major sources becoming area sources. We
also believe that the industry trend will likely result in the
replacement of PF binders completely and, thus, view the lowering of
standards as likely penalizing sources that have been slower in
embracing the industry trend. As also previously explained, our review
of the ICR indicated that all bonded RS lines are equipped with air
pollution control devices as compared to the time of promulgation of
the 1999 MACT standards, and that these various control technologies
have resulted in significantly lower emissions than the existing MACT
standards. We believe that sources will not uninstall these control
technologies at this stage and, thus, that the lower emissions remain
somewhat assured even without our lowering of the existing MACT
standards.
As part of the technology review, we also considered mandating the
use of non-PF binders for lines currently using them, and/or mandating
the use of non-PF binders for all bonded lines. We are not proposing
this option, however, because, as explained in our April 15, 2013,
proposal, facilities cease to be subject to the major source standards
once they phase out the use of PF binders. ``A facility that does not
use phenol-formaldehyde binders does not manufacture a bonded product,
and therefore does not have a rotary spin manufacturing line or a flame
attenuation manufacturing line as defined in the NESHAP. If the
facility does not have a rotary spin manufacturing line or a flame
attenuation manufacturing line it does not meet the definition of wool
fiberglass manufacturing facility and therefore, would no longer be
subject to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP,'' 78 FR 22375,
April 15, 2013. As also previously explained, industry continues to
actively engage in the phase-out of PF binders and have achieved
approximately 95-percent reduction in formaldehyde emissions as a
result. We also believe this industry trend will continue given
industry indications that non-PF binders are actually less expensive
than PF binders. Therefore, cost considerations will move the industry
in this direction without the need for regulation.
We also note that for some products, customer specifications
preclude the use of any currently available non-PF binders. If PF
binders were banned, these products would likely no longer be produced.
We are specifically requesting comment on the proposed readoption
of the current formaldehyde limit rather than setting new limits based
on information and data submitted under the ICR.
B. What are the proposed requirements for methanol emissions from RS
lines?
Based on the new information and data that the agency received
pursuant to the ICR, we are proposing to establish limits for methanol
emissions from combined fiber/collection, curing, and cooling processes
on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities.
[[Page 40976]]
To determine the MACT floor for methanol, we applied the 99-percent
upper predictive limit (UPL) method to the best-performing five sources
in the test data collected under Part 2 of the ICR. The UPL analysis is
explained in the memorandum titled ``Development of Proposed Emission
Limits for Methanol Emissions from Rotary Spin Lines in the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category,'' which is available in the
docket for this proposed action. We considered beyond-the-floor options
for methanol for all combined collection and curing operation designs
as required by CAA section 112(d)(2). However, we are not proposing any
limits based on the beyond-the-floor analyses for methanol for these
sources because of the potential adverse impacts of additional
controls, including the cost of control devices, non-air environmental
impacts, and energy implications associated with use of these
additional controls. The beyond-the-floor analysis is presented in the
memorandum titled ``Control Costs for Rotary Spin Lines,'' which is
available in the docket for this proposed action. Table 3 of this
preamble presents the proposed methanol emission limits for the
combined fiber collection/formation, curing, and cooling processes on
existing, new, and reconstructed RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities.
Table 3--Proposed Methanol Emission Limits (lb/ton of Glass Pulled) for
RS Lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and
Existing sources reconstructed
sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.06.................................................... 0.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emission limits for methanol in this proposed action, if
finalized, would codify the level of emissions currently being achieved
on RS line processes by add-on control devices (e.g., gas scrubbers,
thermal oxidizers).
This proposal differs from and modifies our prior proposals.
Details regarding previously proposed methanol emission limits can be
found in the April 2013 (78 FR 22387) and November 2014 (79 FR 68029)
proposals.
C. What are the proposed requirements for phenol emissions from RS
lines?
We are proposing to establish work practice standards for phenol
emissions from combined fiber/collection, curing, and cooling processes
on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(h). The EPA's review of
the test data collected under Part 2 of the ICR identified that
approximately 60 percent of the concentration values were reported as
below the detection limit of EPA Method 318 (Extractive Fourier
Transform Infrared (FTIR) Method for Measurement of Emissions from the
Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries). Considering statistical
validity, we concluded that, in cases where at least 55 percent of the
test data are below the detection limit of the respective test method,
it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for
phenol from RS lines. Under CAA section 112(h), we are instead
proposing a work practice that represents MACT.
To identify an appropriate work practice standard for phenol, the
EPA reviewed the current NESHAP requirements regarding testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping of resins and binders used in
manufacturing wool fiberglass products. The EPA also discussed possible
phenol work practice standards with industry representatives.
Because of difficulties in measuring phenol, we cannot develop
numerical emission limits; however, we believe that a requirement to
establish the free-phenol content of the binder resin used during the
compliance demonstration for formaldehyde and methanol and the
associated recordkeeping requirements for resin shipments and binder
formulations represents MACT for phenol. Consequently, we are proposing
to require owners or operators to establish the free-phenol content of
the binder resin used during the formaldehyde and methanol compliance
demonstration based on vendor specifications, and to require
recordkeeping of the free-phenol contents of each resin shipment
received and each resin used in binder formulation. We are also
proposing to revise the emission standards specified in 40 CFR
63.1382(c)(9) to require that owners or operators must not use a resin
in binder formulations that contains a higher free-phenol content than
they established during the initial or 5-year compliance demonstrations
for formaldehyde and methanol.
This proposal differs from and modifies our prior proposals.
Details regarding previously proposed phenol emission limits can be
found in the April 2013 (78 FR 22387) and November 2014 (79 FR 68029)
proposals.
D. What compliance dates are we proposing?
We are proposing that wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities that
operate bonded RS lines that commenced construction or reconstruction
on or before August 29, 2017 must demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this subpart no later than 2 years after the effective
date of this rule. Affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after August 29, 2017 must demonstrate compliance with
the requirements of this subpart no later than the effective date of
the rule or upon start-up, whichever is later. CAA section 112(i)(3)
requires that existing sources must comply as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 3 years after promulgation of standards
under CAA section 112(d). (``Section 112(i)(3)'s three-year maximum
compliance period applies generally to any emissions standard . . .
promulgated under [section 112].'' Ass'n of Battery Recyclers v. EPA,
716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). This proposal reflects our belief
that sources would need this amount of time to comply with the various
proposed requirements and is a result of our review of the more recent
information and data that these proposed requirements are based on. For
instance, the proposed work practice standards for phenol, which call
for vendor specifications, would likely require vendor bids and
selections as well as time to establish the free-phenol content of
binder resin and the likely institution of new practices to address the
record keeping requirements when finalized.
V. What other changes are we proposing to the NESHAP in this action?
In this action, we are also proposing amendments to the incinerator
operating limits specified in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(6) to clearly indicate
that the subsection applies to cooling emissions. Incinerators would be
required to control the final formaldehyde, methanol, and, where
applicable, phenol emissions from forming, curing, and cooling
processes on both FA and bonded RS lines.
We are proposing to allow owners or operators that conducted
emissions tests in 2016 in response to the EPA's ICR to submit those
performance test results to demonstrate initial compliance with the new
methanol emission limits for RS lines, rather than conducting
additional tests.
VI. What are the proposed amendments applicable to FA lines?
We are proposing the following three subcategories for FA lines
based on recent information indicating that there are technical or
design differences that distinguish sources that utilize FA lines:
[[Page 40977]]
(1) Aerospace and Air Filtration (Aerospace); (2) Heating, Ventilation,
and Air Conditioning (HVAC); and (3) Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM). (In establishing standards under CAA section 112(d), the EPA may
``distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or sub-category.'' CAA section 112(d)(1). NRDC v. EPA, 489
F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). We are also proposing revisions to the
July 2015 final rule formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol limits to
reflect these new subcategories.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On July 27, 2017, the EPA published a direct final rule to
extend the compliance date for the FA lines in order to provide time
for the EPA to review new emissions data and revise the standards
where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2017, the EPA received notification from Johns Manville
that several of the emission test reports the company submitted to the
EPA to support development of the 2015 NESHAP emission limits for FA
lines contained errors in the analytical results for formaldehyde,
methanol, and phenol. According to Johns Manville and their testing
contractor, the errors caused the test run-level values for pollutant
mass to be biased low, particularly for methanol and phenol (i.e.,
actual pollutant emissions were higher than reported). Johns Manville
provided the corrected reports for the facilities affected by the
miscalculations to the EPA after promulgation of the July 29, 2015,
final rule. Upon further review of the data, including the rationale
for setting the 2015 NESHAP emission limits, the EPA has determined
that there are several technical questions regarding the 2015 NESHAP
emission limits that cannot be resolved using the corrected reports
provided by Johns Manville. Consequently, in May 2017 Johns Manville
provided the EPA with more recent test data for FA lines that were
collected in 2016 and 2017.
The EPA's review of the new test data confirmed that all FA line
emissions points at each facility were sampled and pollutant
concentrations were measured using test methods allowed by 40 CFR 63,
subpart NNN (EPA Methods 316 and 318 for formaldehyde, EPA Methods 308
and 318 for methanol, and EPA Method 318 for phenol). However, the EPA
identified that the phenol emissions from certain FA lines were 1 to 2
orders of magnitude higher than the phenol emissions from other FA
lines. The EPA discussed this observation with Johns Manville
representatives who acknowledged that they use different binder
formulations on certain FA lines to manufacture specific types of wool
fiberglass products, and that the different binder formulations result
in higher or lower phenol emissions, depending on the composition of
the binder. As previously explained, in cases where we identify
differences in size, class, or type that significantly affect emissions
levels, we may create subcategories when setting emission limits. This
is the case here, where the phenol content of the resins is different
based on the product type. The industry identified three types of FA
line products: (1) Aerospace; (2) HVAC; and (3) OEM. The type of
product determines the phenol content of the resin and, ultimately, the
level of phenol emissions.
Based on the EPA's review of the new emissions data, the EPA is
proposing standards for the three subcategories of FA line products as
shown in Table 4.
Table 4--Proposed Emission Limits for FA Lines
[lb/ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and
Subcategory Pollutant Existing reconstructed
sources sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace..................................... Formaldehyde.................... 26.25 16.83
Methanol........................ 8.69 3.98
HVAC.......................................... Formaldehyde.................... 2.81 2.38
Methanol........................ 7.29 1.44
Phenol.......................... 0.38 0.38
OEM........................................... Formaldehyde.................... 4.66 2.60
Methanol........................ 5.32 0.98
Phenol.......................... 27.19 20.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Aerospace subcategory, we are proposing a work practice
standard that represents MACT for phenol because approximately 80
percent of the available phenol data are below the detection limit of
the respective test method. Consistent with our proposed work practice
for phenol emissions from RS lines, we are proposing to require owners
or operators to establish the free-phenol content of the binder resin
used during the formaldehyde and methanol compliance demonstration for
the Aerospace subcategory, based on vendor specifications, and to
require recordkeeping of the free-phenol contents of each resin
shipment received and each resin used in binder formulation. We are
also proposing to revise the emission standards specified in 40 CFR
63.1382(c)(9) to require that owners or operators must not use a resin
in binder formulations that contain a higher free-phenol content than
they established during the initial or 5-year compliance demonstrations
for formaldehyde and methanol.
We are specifically requesting comments and supporting process and
emissions data related to the proposed revisions to the promulgated
emissions limits for FA lines.
VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental and Economic Impacts
A. How many sources are affected?
Based on the responses to the 2016 ICR, only three wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities continue to use RS lines to manufacture a
bonded product. These three facilities operate six bonded RS lines that
would be affected by the revised emission limits. The EPA is not
currently aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed bonded
RS lines.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The proposed standards codify and maintain the emissions reductions
achieved by the industry due primarily to the phase-out of PF binders
since promulgation of the 1999 NESHAP. Based on the test data received
in response to the CAA section 114 ICR, all facilities with bonded RS
lines currently meet the proposed emission limits for formaldehyde and
methanol. Therefore, the proposed emission limits for
[[Page 40978]]
formaldehyde and methanol will not result in further HAP emissions
reductions. Also, we do not anticipate secondary environmental impacts
from the proposed amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
NESHAP because owners or operators will not need to install additional
control devices to meet the proposed standards.
C. What are the cost impacts?
Because the existing facilities will not need to install add-on
control devices or implement process modifications to comply with the
proposed emissions standards, and because the EPA is allowing
facilities to use the test reports submitted in response to the ICR
Part 2 to demonstrate initial compliance with the proposed emission
limits, the three facilities subject to the proposed emission limits
will not incur increased costs for installing or upgrading emissions
control systems. However, the three facilities subject to this proposal
will each incur costs ($4,377/year/facility, 2016 dollars) related to
the submission of initial notifications and notifications of compliance
status for the formaldehyde and methanol emission limits, and
additional monitoring and recordkeeping activities related to the
phenol work practice standard.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses evaluate changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
directly affected markets are significant, impacts on other markets are
also examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with the
rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can
have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a
rule.
The proposed standards for RS lines at wool fiberglass facilities
do not impose control costs or additional testing costs on affected
facilities. However, affected facilities will have reporting
requirements (i.e., an initial notification and a notification of
compliance status) associated with the proposed formaldehyde and
methanol emission limits and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
associated with the phenol work practice standard. We estimate that the
total annual burden for each facility associated with the proposed
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements to be
approximately $4,377/year/facility, and the total annual cost of this
proposal is approximately $13,131/year (2016 dollars). The economic
impacts associated with the costs of this proposal are quite low; each
affected firm is estimated to experience an impact of less than 0.01
percent of their revenues.
E. What are the benefits?
Based on the data collected under ICR Part 2, the actual
formaldehyde emissions from all bonded RS lines are lower than the
level allowed under the 1999 NESHAP. Although the proposed standards do
not achieve further emissions reductions, the proposed emission limits
for formaldehyde and methanol ensure that the emissions reductions that
have been achieved since promulgation of the original 40 CFR 63,
subpart NNN in 1999 will persist into the future and that emissions
will not increase.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This proposed 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)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 1160.10. This action does not change the information
collection requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
None of the three entities affected by this proposal are small
entities, using the Small Business Administration definition of small
business for the affected NAICS code (327993), which is 1,500 employees
for the ultimate parent company.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This proposed action does not contain any 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 proposed action
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments
or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action would revise
the existing emissions limit for formaldehyde and establish new
emission limits for methanol and a work practice standard for phenol
emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed
action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This proposed action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed 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 proposed action 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 NNN, we conducted searches for
EPA Methods 5,
[[Page 40979]]
318, 320, 29, and 0061 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. These searches
did not identify any VCS that were potentially applicable for this rule
in lieu of EPA reference methods.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). It
does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This
action would make corrections and updates to an existing protocol for
assessing the precision and accuracy of alternative test methods to
ensure they are comparable to the methods otherwise required; thus, it
does not modify or affect the impacts to human health or the
environment of any standards for which it may be used.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass manufacturing.
Dated: August 18, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations 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.
Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
0
2. Section 63.1381 is amended by adding the definitions, in
alphabetical order, for ``Aerospace and Air Filtration Products,''
``Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Products,'' and
``Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Products'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1381 Definitions.
* * * * *
Aerospace and air filtration products means bonded wool fiberglass
insulation manufactured for the thermal and acoustical insulation of
aircraft and/or the air filtration markets.
* * * * *
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) products means
bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured for use in HVAC systems
for the distribution of air or for thermal and acoustical insulation of
HVAC distribution lines.
* * * * *
Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) products means bonded wool
fiberglass insulation manufactured for OEM entities that fabricate the
insulation into parts used as thermal or acoustical insulation in
products including, but not limited to, appliances, refrigeration
units, and office interior equipment.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(8)(i),
and (c)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1382 Emission standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) The owner or operator must operate each incinerator used to
comply with the emissions limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation
lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart such that any 3-hour block
average temperature in the firebox does not fall below the average
established during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384.
* * * * *
(8) * * *
(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 1
hour when the monitored process parameter level(s) is outside the
limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in Sec.
63.1384 for the process modification(s) used to comply with the
emissions limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines specified
in Table 2 to this subpart, and complete corrective actions in a timely
manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
* * * * *
(9) The owner or operator must use a resin in the formulation of
binder such that the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of the
resin used do not exceed the respective ranges contained in the
specification for the resin used during the performance test as
specified in Sec. 63.1384.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.1383 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h),
(i)(1), and (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1383 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) The owner or operator who uses an incinerator to comply with
the emissions limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines
specified in Table 2 to this subpart shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures
and records the operating temperature in the firebox of each
incinerator.
* * * * *
(h) The owner or operator who uses a wet scrubbing control device
to control formaldehyde and methanol emissions must install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate monitoring devices that continuously monitor and
record the gas pressure drop across each scrubber and the scrubbing
liquid flow rate to each scrubber according to the procedures in the
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The pressure drop monitor
must be certified by its manufacturer to be accurate within 250 pascals (1 inch water gauge) over its operating
range, and the flow rate monitor must be certified by its manufacturer
to be accurate within 5 percent over its operating range.
The owner or operator must also continuously monitor and record the
feed rate of any chemical(s) added to the scrubbing liquid.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) The owner or operator who uses process modifications to control
formaldehyde and methanol emissions must establish a correlation
between formaldehyde and methanol emissions and the process
parameter(s) to be monitored.
* * * * *
(j) The owner or operator must monitor and record the free-
formaldehyde and free-phenol content of each resin shipment received
and of each resin used in the formulation of binder.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.1384 is amended by revising introductory paragraph (a),
(a)(3), (a)(9), and introductory paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1384 Performance test requirements.
(a) The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. Compliance is demonstrated
when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each
of the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. The owner or
operator shall conduct the
[[Page 40980]]
performance test according to the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
A and in this section. If the owner or operator conducted an emissions
test in 2016 according to the procedures specified in Sec.
63.1384(a)(9) and Sec. 63.1385 in response to the EPA's Information
Collection Request, the owner or operator can use the results of the
emissions test to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limits for rotary spin lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(3) During each performance test, the owner or operator must
monitor and record the glass pull rate for each glass-melting furnace
and, if different, the glass pull rate for each rotary spin
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line. Record the
glass pull rate every 15 minutes during any performance test required
by this subpart and determine the arithmetic average of the recorded
measurements for each test run and calculate the average of the three
test runs. If a rotary spin or flame attenuation line shares one or
more emissions points with another rotary spin or flame attenuation
line(s), owners or operators can conduct the performance test while
each of the process lines with the shared emissions point(s) is
operating as specified in paragraph (a)(8) of this section, rather than
testing each of the shared lines separately. In these cases, owners or
operators must use the combined glass pull rate for the process lines
with the shared emissions point(s) to demonstrate compliance with the
emissions limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(9) The owner or operator of each rotary spin manufacturing line
and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated by this subpart must
conduct performance tests using the resin with the highest free-
formaldehyde content. During the performance test of each rotary spin
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated
by this subpart, the owner or operator shall monitor and record the
free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of the resin, the binder
formulation used, and the product LOI and density.
* * * * *
(c) To determine compliance with the emission limits specified in
Table 2 to this subpart, for formaldehyde and methanol 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:
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8) as follows:
Sec. 63.1385 Test methods and procedures.
(a) * * *
(8) Method contained in appendix B of this subpart for the
determination of the free-formaldehyde content of resin. The owner or
operator shall use vendor specifications to determine the free-phenol
content of resin.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2)(v) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of each binder
batch and the LOI and density for each product manufactured on a rotary
spin manufacturing line or flame attenuation manufacturing line subject
to the provisions of this subpart, and the free-formaldehyde and free-
phenol contents of each resin shipment received and of each resin used
in the binder formulation;
* * * * *
0
8. Table 2 to subpart NNN of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising entries 7 and 8;
0
b. Redesignating entries 9 through 13 as entries 11 through 15;
0
c. Adding new entries 9 and 10;
0
d. Revising newly redesignated entries 13 through 15;
0
e. Adding new entries 16 through 19; and
0
g. Adding new footnote 5.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Emissions Limits and Compliance Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you commenced Your emission limits And you must comply by:
If your source is a: construction: are: \1\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
7. Rotary spin manufacturing line.... On or before March 31, 1.2 lb formaldehyde per June 14, 2002.
1997. ton of glass pulled
\5\.
8. Rotary spin manufacturing line.... After March 31, 1997... 0.8 lb formaldehyde per June 14, 1999.
ton of glass pulled
\5\.
9. Rotary spin manufacturing line.... On or before November 0.32 lb formaldehyde Date 3 years after
25, 2011. per ton of glass publication of the
pulled. final rule.
1.06 lb methanol per
ton of glass pulled.
10. Rotary spin manufacturing line... After November 25, 2011 0.24 lb formaldehyde Date of publication of
per ton of glass the final rule.\4\
pulled.
0.65 lb methanol per
ton of glass pulled.
11. Flame attenuation line After March 31, 1997 7.8 lb formaldehyde per June 14, 1999.
manufacturing a heavy-density but on or before ton of glass pulled
product. November 25, 2011. \5\.
12. Flame attenuation line On or before March 31, 6.8 lb formaldehyde per June 14, 2002.
manufacturing a pipe product. 1997. ton of glass pulled
\5\.
13. Flame attenuation line After March 31, 1997 6.8 lb formaldehyde per June 14, 1999.
manufacturing a pipe product. but before November ton of glass pulled
25, 2011. \5\.
14. Flame attenuation line On or before November 26.25 lb formaldehyde Date 1 year after
manufacturing an Aerospace product. 25, 2011. per ton of glass publication of the
pulled. final rule.
8.69 lb methanol per
ton of glass pulled.
[[Page 40981]]
15. Flame attenuation line After November 25, 2011 16.83 lb formaldehyde Date of publication of
manufacturing an Aerospace product. per ton of glass the final rule.\4\
pulled.
3.98 lb methanol per
ton of glass pulled.
16. Flame attenuation line On or before November 2.81 lb formaldehyde Date 1 year after
manufacturing an HVAC product. 25, 2011. per ton of glass publication of the
pulled. final rule.
7.29 lb methanol per
ton of glass pulled.
0.38 lb phenol per ton
of glass pulled.
17. Flame attenuation line After November 25, 2011 2.38 lb formaldehyde Date of publication of
manufacturing an HVAC product. per ton of glass the final rule.\4\
pulled.
1.44 lb methanol per
ton of glass pulled.
0.38 lb phenol per ton
of glass pulled.
18. Flame attenuation line On or before November 4.66 lb formaldehyde Date 1 year after
manufacturing an OEM product. 25, 2011. per ton of glass publication of the
pulled. final rule.
5.32 lb methanol per
ton of glass pulled.
27.19 lb phenol per ton
of glass pulled.
19. Flame attenuation line After November 25, 2011 2.60 lb formaldehyde Date of publication of
manufacturing an OEM product. per ton of glass the final rule.\4\
pulled.
0.98 lb methanol per
ton of glass pulled.
20.69 lb phenol per ton
of glass pulled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This limit does not apply after date 3 years after publication of the final rule.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-18211 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
