[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17824-17845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-7096]
[[Page 17823]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 70 / Thursday, April 11, 2002 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17824]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7163-3]
RIN 2060-AH89
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule and notice of revisions to list of categories of
major and area sources and to the promulgation schedule for standards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action adds wet-formed fiberglass mat production to the
list of categories of major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
published under section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and to the
source category schedule for national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP).
This action promulgates the NESHAP for new and existing sources at
wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities. The primary organic
HAP emitted by these facilities are formaldehyde, methanol, and vinyl
acetate. Exposure to these HAP can cause reversible or irreversible
adverse health effects including carcinogenic, respiratory, nervous
system, developmental, reproductive, and/or dermal health effects.
These NESHAP will reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from the drying
and curing ovens at these facilities by 199 megagrams per year (Mg/yr)
(219 tons per year or tons/yr), an approximate 74 percent reduction
from the current level of emissions.
These NESHAP are based on the Administrator's determination that
wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities emit several of the 188
HAP listed in the CAA from the various process operations found within
the industry, and that these facilities can be major sources of HAP.
These NESHAP will protect the public by requiring all wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities that are major sources to meet HAP
emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT).
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 2002. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the subpart is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of April 11, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-97-54 contains the information
considered by EPA in developing this rule. This docket is located at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Room M-1500, Waterside Mall,
Washington, DC 20460 and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the final
rule, contact Mr. Juan Santiago, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-1084, e-mail address: [email protected].
For information regarding Method 316 or Method 318, contact Ms. Rima N.
Howell; Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division (MD-19); U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-0443, e-mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information considered by EPA in the
development of this rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because
material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries
involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of
the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review.
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other
materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this notice will be available on the WWW through
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of
the notice will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
are those industrial facilities that manufacture wet-formed fiberglass
mat. Wet-formed fiberglass mat production is classified under Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code 3229325; the NAICS code is 327212,
Non-woven Fabric Mills. Regulated categories and entities are shown in
table 1. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the
final rule. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by the final rule. To determine
whether your facility would be regulated by the final rule, carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.2981 of the final rule.
If there are any questions regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult Mr. Juan Santiago (See FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SIC/NAICS Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial.................................. 3229325/327212 Wet-formed fiberglass mat production
facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Review. These NESHAP for wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities were proposed on May 26, 2000 (65 FR 34278). This
action announces EPA's final decisions on the rule. Under section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the NESHAP is available only
by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of April 11, 2002. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the subject of
today's final action may not be challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. Background
[[Page 17825]]
A. Regulatory Background and Addition to Source Category List
B. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
C. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from this
source category?
D. Stakeholder and Public Participation
II. What are the requirements of these NESHAP?
A. Do these NESHAP apply to me?
B. What emission limits must I meet?
C. What operating limits must I meet?
D. What are the performance test and initial compliance
provisions of these NESHAP?
E. What monitoring requirements must I meet?
F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of these NESHAP?
III. What are the impacts of these NESHAP?
A. What are the air emission impacts?
B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
C. Are there any additional environmental and health impacts?
D. What are the energy impacts?
E. What are the cost impacts?
F. What are the economic impacts?
IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
A. Operating Limits
B. Performance Test and Initial Compliance Provisions
C. Monitoring Requirements
D. Definitions
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601, et seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Congressional Review Act
J. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. Background
A. Regulatory Background and Addition to Source Category List
Section 112(c) of the CAA directs us to list each category of major
and area sources, as appropriate, that emits one or more of the 188 HAP
listed in section 112(b) of the CAA. The term ``major source'' is
defined in section 112(a)(1) to mean:
* * * any stationary source or group of stationary sources located
within a contiguous area under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit, considering controls, in the aggregate 10 tons
per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year
or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants * * *.
We published an initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992
(57 FR 31576). Included on the initial source category list were major
sources of HAP emissions from the asphalt roofing and processing
industry.
As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule (65 FR 34279; May
26, 2000), during development of the asphalt roofing and processing
NESHAP, industry representatives informed us of the existence of the
wet-formed fiberglass mat production industry and its relationship to
the asphalt roofing production industry. We proposed separate NESHAP
for wet-formed fiberglass mat production because the production
processes and pollutant emissions differ from those in the asphalt
roofing industry. In addition, wet-formed fiberglass mat is produced at
both stand-alone facilities and those collocated with asphalt roofing
and processing facilities. The CAA provides that we may amend the
source category list anytime. Consequently, we proposed adding wet-
formed fiberglass mat production to the source category list under
section 112(c) of the CAA.
Wet-formed fiberglass mat is the substrate for several asphalt
roofing products. In wet-formed fiberglass mat production, glass fibers
are bonded with an organic resin. The mat is formed as the resin is
dried and cured in heated ovens. The majority of HAP emissions
associated with wet-formed fiberglass mat production are emitted from
the drying and curing oven exhaust. Based on HAP emission data obtained
during the development of the rule, we have determined that all wet-
formed fiberglass mat production facilities are major sources of HAP.
Nine of the 14 facilities (10 of the 15 production lines) control the
drying and curing oven exhaust emissions. Several of the five remaining
facilities that do not control the drying and curing oven exhaust are
also major sources of HAP.
We received no public comments that were opposed to adding wet-
formed fiberglass mat facilities to the source category list.
Therefore, today's action adds wet-formed fiberglass mat production to
the list of source categories under section 112(c) of the CAA for which
MACT standards are to be developed. Section 112(c)(5) requires that
final standards for this source category be promulgated no later than
May 26, 2002 (2 years after adding the source category to the list).
Today's action satisfies that requirement.
B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to promulgate standards for the
control of HAP emissions from each source category listed under section
112(c). The statute requires the standards to reflect the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable taking into
consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any non-air
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This
level of control is commonly referred to as MACT. The MACT standards
can be based on the emission reductions achievable through application
of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques including, but
not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions
of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials,
or other modifications; (2) enclosing systems or processes to eliminate
emissions; (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point;
(4) design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards
(including requirements for operator training or certification) as
provided in section 112(h) of the CAA; or (5) a combination of the
above (see section 112(d)(2) of the CAA).
For new sources, MACT standards cannot be less stringent than the
emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar
source (see section 112(d)(3) of the CAA). The MACT standards for
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources.
However, they cannot be less stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing
sources for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or
the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with
fewer than 30 sources.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, MACT
standards are designed to ensure that all major sources of air toxic
emissions achieve the level of control already being achieved by the
better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each category or
subcategory. This approach provides assurance to the public that each
major source of toxic air pollution will be required to effectively
control its emissions. At the same time, this
[[Page 17826]]
approach provides a level economic playing field, ensuring that
facilities that employ cleaner processes and good emission controls are
not disadvantaged relative to competitors with poorer controls.
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on consideration of the cost of achieving the
emission reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What Are the Health Effects of Pollutants Emitted From This Source
Category?
The CAA was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (see section
101(b) of the CAA). These NESHAP will protect public health by reducing
emissions of HAP from wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities.
Emission data collected during development of the NESHAP show that
formaldehyde, vinyl acetate, and methanol are emitted from wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities. The emission limits in these
NESHAP will reduce emissions of these pollutants emitted from drying
and curing ovens. As a result of controlling these HAP, the final
NESHAP will also reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC).
A summary of the potential health effects caused by exposure to these
pollutants is presented in the preamble to the proposed rule (65 FR
34280; May 26, 2000).
D. Stakeholder and Public Participation
Various stakeholders were involved in the development of these
standards. Individual wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities
and the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI)
were consulted throughout the development of these standards.
Representatives from State and Regional enforcement agencies, as well
as representatives from other offices within EPA, participated in the
regulatory development process by reviewing and commenting on the
standards during development.
The NESHAP for wet-formed fiberglass mat production (40 CFR part
63, subpart HHHH) was proposed in the Federal Register on May 26, 2000
(65 FR 34278). The public comment period ended on July 25, 2000.
Industry representatives, regulatory authorities, and environmental
groups had the opportunity to comment on the proposed NESHAP and to
provide additional information during the public comment period.
Although the Agency offered the opportunity at proposal for oral
presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule,
no one requested a hearing and, therefore, a hearing was not held. The
EPA received five letters containing comments on the proposed NESHAP
from various groups including a State university and two trade
associations representing industry. These final NESHAP reflect EPA's
full consideration of the comments. The major public comments, along
with EPA's responses to these comments on the proposed rule, are
summarized in this preamble. A discussion of all public comments and
EPA's responses is contained in the docket.
II. What Are the Requirements of These NESHAP?
A. Do These NESHAP Apply to Me?
These NESHAP apply to you if you own or operate an existing or
newly constructed or reconstructed drying and curing oven located at a
wet-formed fiberglass mat production facility that is a major source of
HAP or that is collocated with a major source of HAP emissions. A major
source means any source that has the potential to emit 10 tons/yr or
more of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP.
You would not be subject to the NESHAP if your facility is
determined to be an area source. An area source of HAP is any facility
that is not a major source as defined in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A.
B. What Emission Limits Must I Meet?
These NESHAP regulate emissions of formaldehyde as a surrogate for
total HAP emissions. Control of formaldehyde by thermal oxidation will
also result in control of vinyl acetate and methanol. You must meet
either a mass HAP emission limit or percentage reduction requirement
for each drying and curing oven. The HAP emission limits are the same
for new and existing drying and curing ovens. The HAP emission limits
for the exhaust from new and existing drying and curing ovens are a
maximum formaldehyde emission rate of 0.03 kilograms per megagram (kg/
Mg) of wet-formed fiberglass mat produced (0.05 pounds per ton (lb/ton)
of wet-formed fiberglass mat produced) or a minimum of 96 percent
destruction efficiency of formaldehyde (as shown in Table 2). You can
choose to comply with either the emission rate limit or the percent
reduction requirement. If you use a thermal oxidizer or other control
device to achieve the mass emission limit or percentage reduction
requirement, you must collect and convey the emissions from each drying
and curing oven to the control device according to the procedures
specified in chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of
Recommended Practice.'' Section 63.3003 of the rule explains how to
obtain a copy of this reference.
Table 2.--Summary of Emission Limits for New and Existing Drying and Curing Ovens at Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Manufacturing Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Emission limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each existing and new drying and curing oven 0.03 kg of formaldehyde per Mg of fiberglass mat (0.05 lb of
formaldehyde per ton of fiberglass mat)
or
96 percent reduction of formaldehyde.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What Operating Limits Must I Meet?
In addition to the emission limits, the final NESHAP contain
specific operating limits, summarized in Table 3. The operating limits
require you to maintain certain process or control device parameters
within the levels established during the initial performance test. All
operating limits must reflect operation of the process and control
device during a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the
emission limit during operating conditions that would achieve the
highest potential emission rate.
[[Page 17827]]
Table 3.--Summary of Operating Limits for New and Existing Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected source Parameter, operation, or process to monitor Operating limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each affected drying and curing oven Resin free-formaldehyde content, and Use a resin with a
(regardless of control technology). free-formaldehyde
content no greater
than that of the
resin used during
the performance
test, as determined
by the resin
purchase
specification or
test method.
Application rate of urea-formaldehyde resin Do not exceed the
solids, and urea-formaldehyde
resin solids
application rate
achieved during the
performance test.
Corrective action........................... Initiate corrective
action within 1
hour of an
established
operating parameter
deviation and
complete and
document action per
operation,
maintenance and
monitoring plan.
Each affected drying and curing oven Thermal oxidizer operating temperature, and Maintain the average
controlled by a thermal oxidizer. temperature for
each 3-hour period
at or above the
average operating
temperature
achieved during the
performance test.
Thermal oxidizer operation.................. Operate the thermal
oxidizer in
accordance with the
operation,
maintenance, and
monitoring plan;
annually inspect
the thermal
oxidizer for
structural and
design integrity.
Each affected drying and curing oven Process or control device parameters. Maintain the process
controlled by process modifications or a or control device
control device other than a thermal parameter within
oxidizer. the ranges
established during
the performance
test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must also prepare an operation, maintenance, and monitoring
(OMM) plan. The OMM plan must specify the parameters that must be
monitored, how they will be monitored, the operating limits, and the
corrective actions that must be followed whenever a monitored parameter
deviates from the operating limits. The OMM plan shall be incorporated
by reference into your title V permit.
Following the performance test, whenever you detect that a
monitored parameter deviates from the established operating limits, you
must initiate the corrective actions specified in the OMM plan within 1
hour. You must complete the corrective actions in an expeditious manner
and implement them as specified in your OMM plan.
If you use a thermal oxidizer to achieve compliance with the
emission limits, you must operate the thermal oxidizer so that the
average operating temperature in any 3-hour block period does not fall
below the average temperature established during the performance test.
Additionally, an annual inspection of the thermal oxidizer is required
to ensure that the structural and design integrity of the combustion
chamber is maintained in the same condition as during the performance
test. If you use process modifications or an add-on control device
other than a thermal oxidizer to achieve compliance with the emission
standards, you must maintain the process or control device parameter(s)
within the operating limits that you established during the performance
test. In addition, you must receive EPA Administrator approval for the
alternative monitoring. You must also include the alternative
monitoring and alternative operating limits in your OMM plan, which is
incorporated by reference into your title V permit.
The operating limits also require you to maintain the free-
formaldehyde content of the resin and the urea-formaldehyde resin
solids application rate within the levels you established during a
compliance test and as specified in your OMM plan. These operating
limits apply regardless of which type of control you use to comply with
the HAP emission limits.
D. What Are the Performance Test and Initial Compliance Provisions of
These NESHAP?
You must conduct a performance test to demonstrate initial
compliance with the emission limits. The performance test must be
performed initially and every 5 years following the initial performance
test. A performance test is also required to change the value or range
of an operating limit. Under the final NESHAP, you must conduct the
performance test while operating at the maximum urea-formaldehyde resin
solids application rate and using the resin with the highest free-
formaldehyde content. You must measure formaldehyde emissions as the
average of three test runs using EPA Method 316 in appendix A of 40 CFR
part 63, ``Sampling and Analysis for Formaldehyde from Stationary
Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries'' or EPA
Method 318 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, ``Extractive FTIR Method
for the Measurement of Emissions from the Mineral Wool and Wool
Fiberglass Industries.'' You must demonstrate compliance with either
the mass emission limit or the percentage reduction requirement using
the instructions and equations contained in the performance test
requirements section of these final NESHAP.
If you use a thermal oxidizer to comply with these NESHAP, you must
conduct a performance evaluation for the thermal oxidizer temperature
monitoring device prior to the initial performance test to determine
compliance. The evaluation must be conducted according to the
procedures in 40 CFR 63.8(e) of the NESHAP general provisions. The
temperature monitoring device must meet the following performance and
equipment specifications: (1) The temperature monitoring device must be
installed either at the exit of the combustion zone of each thermal
oxidizer or at the location specified by the manufacturer, and the
device must be installed in a location before any heat recovery or heat
exchange equipment; (2) the recorder response range must include zero
and 1.5 times the average temperature; and (3) the reference method
must be a National Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated
reference thermocouple-potentiometer system or an alternate reference,
subject to the approval of the Administrator.
During the performance tests, you must continuously monitor the
thermal oxidizer operating temperature and record the average
temperature in 15-minute blocks during each 1-hour test run. After
completion of the three required test runs, you must determine the 3-
hour average operating temperature of the thermal oxidizer. If you use
process modifications or an add-on control device other than a thermal
oxidizer to comply with the emission limits, you must determine the
[[Page 17828]]
appropriate control device or process parameters to monitor to indicate
whether compliance is being achieved. You must include the process or
control device parameters, monitoring frequency, and the averaging
periods in your site-specific test plan required by the 40 CFR part 63
general provisions prior to conducting your initial performance test.
You may perform multiple tests to establish the least restrictive value
or operating range for the selected parameters that still demonstrate
compliance.
During the performance tests, you must also determine and record
the average hourly urea-formaldehyde resin solids application rate
during each of the three test runs and the free-formaldehyde content of
the resin used to produce the mat.
The final NESHAP allow facilities subject to the NESHAP to conduct
short-term experimental production runs, where the resin free-
formaldehyde content or urea-formaldehyde resin solids application rate
deviate from the levels established during previous performance tests,
without conducting additional performance tests. You must apply for
approval from the Administrator or delegated State agency to conduct
such experimental production runs. The application must be made at
least 30 days prior to conducting the run. The application would
include information on the nature and duration of the test runs
including plans to perform emissions testing. If you conduct such
experimental production runs without first receiving approval from the
Administrator or delegated State agency, then you must conduct a
performance test under those same experimental run conditions to show
that you were in compliance with the formaldehyde emission limit or
percent reduction.
E. What Monitoring Requirements Must I Meet?
Continuous compliance is demonstrated after the initial performance
test and between subsequent performance tests by monitoring operating
parameters of emission control devices and processes. The allowable
monitoring parameter values or ranges are determined during your
initial performance test and must be included in your OMM plan.
If you use a thermal oxidizer to achieve compliance with the
emission limits, you must: (1) Install, operate, calibrate, and
maintain a device that continuously measures the operating temperature
of each thermal oxidizer; and (2) determine and record the temperature
in 15-minute and 3-hour block averages. This is typically done using a
thermocouple (a standard feature on most thermal oxidizers) and a data
logger.
If process modifications or a control device other than a thermal
oxidizer is used to achieve compliance with the emission limits, you
must monitor the parameters that were established during the
performance test and included in your OMM plan.
You are also required to record the urea-formaldehyde-to-latex
ratio in the binder, measure the loss-on-ignition value using the
method in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, measure the
weight per square of the wet-formed fiberglass mat produced and the
hourly mat production rate, and calculate the urea-formaldehyde resin
solids content of the product manufactured. The values of these
parameters are determined in order to calculate the hourly average
urea-formaldehyde resin solids application rate. You must also
determine the free-formaldehyde content of the urea-formaldehyde resins
using either the method in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH,
or the material supplier's documentation. Because these process
parameters affect the amount of HAP emitted from the drying and curing
oven, you must monitor them to ensure that operation of the production
process is consistent with the conditions of the performance test, and
that the production process does not vary in such a way as to increase
HAP emissions from the drying and curing oven exhaust.
The final NESHAP contain provisions that allow you to change the
thermal oxidizer operating temperature, operating parameters for add-on
control devices other than thermal oxidizers, and process operating
parameter values from those established using the initial and 5-year
performance tests. These provisions allow you to make process changes
or to demonstrate that different monitoring parameter values would more
appropriately demonstrate compliance with the final emission limits.
You may revise the monitoring or process parameter values by conducting
additional performance tests to verify compliance at the revised
operating levels. For example, if you intend to use a urea-formaldehyde
resin with a higher free-formaldehyde content or operate at a higher
urea-formaldehyde resin solids application rate, you must perform
additional performance tests to verify compliance under conditions of
the increased operating or process parameters. You must notify the
Administrator in writing of your intention to conduct these additional
performance tests and follow the procedures in 40 CFR 63.7.
F. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
of These NESHAP?
All notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the
40 CFR part 63 general provisions, as well as additional requirements,
apply to wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing facilities. The
notification and reporting requirements include, but are not limited
to: (1) Initial notification of applicability of the rule, notification
of the dates for conducting the performance test, and notification of
compliance status including the measured range of each monitored
parameter and the operating limits established during the performance
test; (2) a report of performance test results; (3) periodic reports of
any startup, shutdown, and malfunction events that occur; and (4)
semiannual reports of deviations and continuous monitoring system
performance. A deviation is any instance when any requirement or
obligation established by the rule including, but not limited to, the
emission limits and operating limits, is not met. If no deviations
occur during a semiannual reporting period, you must submit a
semiannual report stating that the affected source has been in
continuous compliance during that period. If deviations from
established monitoring parameters occur, the frequency of submitting
the semiannual reports becomes quarterly until a request to return to
semiannual reporting is approved by the Administrator. You cannot
submit the request to reduce the frequency of the reporting period
until the affected source's reports of deviations and continuous
monitoring system performance remain continually within the established
parameter ranges for 1 full year.
When using a thermal oxidizer or other control device to reduce HAP
emissions, you will have to make your startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests
to see it, but you do not have to submit it to the Administrator for
approval. You must keep the plan for the life of the affected source or
until the source is no longer subject to the rule. If you revise the
plan, you must keep the previous superseded versions on record for 5
years following the revision.
You must maintain records of the following, as applicable: (1) All
results of performance tests; (2) thermal oxidizer operating
temperature; (3) process parameters for drying and
[[Page 17829]]
curing ovens that comply with the emission limits using process
modifications or an add-on control device other than a thermal
oxidizer; (4) free-formaldehyde content of the resin; (5) urea-
formaldehyde-to-latex ratio; (6) loss-on-ignition value of the wet-
formed fiberglass mat produced; (7) urea-formaldehyde resin solids
content per ton of the wet-formed fiberglass mat produced; (8) weight
of the mat per roofing square; (9) average hourly wet-formed fiberglass
mat production rate; (10) for operating parameter deviations, the date,
time, and duration of each deviation, the date and time corrective
actions were initiated and completed, a brief description of the cause
of the deviation, and a description of the corrective actions taken to
return the parameter to the limit or within the range established in
the OMM plan and during the most recent performance test; (11) the OMM
plan; (12) the occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of the control device; (13) actions taken during startup,
shutdown, and malfunction that are different from the procedures
specified in the affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan; (14) maintenance and inspections performed on control devices;
and (15) any other information required to be recorded by the general
provisions.
The NESHAP general provisions require that records be maintained
for at least 5 years from the date of each record. You must retain the
records onsite for at least 2 years but you may retain the records
offsite for the remaining 3 years. The records must be readily
available and in a form suitable for efficient inspection and review.
The files may be retained on paper, microfilm, microfiche, a computer,
computer disks, or magnetic tape. Reports may be made on paper or on a
labeled computer disk using commonly available and compatible computer
software.
III. What Are the Impacts of These NESHAP?
A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?
At the current level of control, nationwide emissions of HAP from
the 14 facilities in the industry are estimated to be approximately 268
Mg/yr (295 tons/yr). Under the final NESHAP, it is expected that
thermal oxidizers will be added to the five uncontrolled drying and
curing ovens, and that existing thermal oxidizers will be replaced with
new units for three out of the ten controlled drying and curing ovens.
This would result in an estimated reduction in nationwide HAP emissions
of 199 Mg/yr (219 tons/yr).
Formaldehyde emissions from wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing
lines account for about 65 percent of the baseline HAP emissions.
Methanol emissions account for approximately 30 percent, with vinyl
acetate comprising the remaining 5 percent of the baseline HAP
emissions. (These percentages are national averages. The actual
emission profiles from individual lines will vary with the type of
resin and binder used.) Estimated nationwide emissions of formaldehyde
from existing wet-formed fiberglass mat production lines are 174 Mg/yr
(192 tons/yr) at the current level of control. Implementing the NESHAP
will reduce nationwide formaldehyde emissions from existing sources by
about 130 Mg/yr (143 tons/yr), and combined emissions of vinyl acetate
and methanol will be reduced by 70 Mg/yr (77 tons/yr).
Secondary emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from
thermal oxidizer controls are formed as a result of natural gas
combustion. Total emissions of NOX from all affected sources
are estimated to increase by about 15 Mg/yr (16 tons/yr).
B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?
Because compliance with the NESHAP is based on the use of thermal
oxidizers, no water pollution or solid waste impacts would result from
the NESHAP.
C. Are There Any Additional Environmental and Health Impacts?
Reducing HAP emissions will lower occupational HAP and VOC exposure
levels. The operation of thermal oxidizers may increase occupational
noise levels in the five facilities that currently do not control HAP
emissions.
D. What Are the Energy Impacts?
Thermal oxidizers require electrical energy to operate fans.
Additional electrical energy requirements are estimated to be 4,260
megawatt hours per year (MW-hr/yr). An additional 275,000 million
British thermal units per year (Btu/yr) of natural gas are estimated to
be required for eight additional thermal oxidizers that would be added
to existing sources. The total additional energy (electricity and
natural gas) required as a result of the NESHAP is 290 billion Btu/yr
in the fifth year following promulgation of the NESHAP.
We do not have sufficient information to predict the number of new
glass mat production lines that will be built and come on line in the 5
years after promulgation or to predict the energy needs for control
devices on those new lines. However, the average energy need for the
control device on a new line would be about the same as the average
energy need for a control device on an existing line, or about 530 MW-
hr/yr of electricity and 34,400 million Btu of natural gas.
E. What Are the Cost Impacts?
Cost impacts of the final NESHAP for drying and curing ovens were
analyzed using site-specific information included in the TAPPI survey
responses coupled with procedures from the ``OAQPS Cost Manual.'' For
some facilities where site-specific data necessary for estimating costs
(e.g., a vent flow rate) were not available, average factors developed
from industry survey data were used to estimate the missing data.
The total capital costs to achieve the final NESHAP are estimated
to be $5,272,000. These capital cost impacts arise from the purchase
and installation of eight thermal oxidizers--five thermal oxidizers for
the five facilities without existing controls and three thermal
oxidizers for three facilities that must replace existing thermal
oxidizers that cannot meet the final NESHAP. The average capital cost
of installing a new thermal oxidizer is estimated at $716,000 per
oxidizer. The capital cost estimate to install a new thermal oxidizer
to achieve compliance includes the cost of auxiliary burners,
combustion chambers, primary heat exchangers, weather-tight housing and
insulation, a fan, flow and temperature controls, a stack, and
structural supports.
The monitoring requirements for the thermal oxidizer operating
temperature are not current industry practice and are expected to
impose additional costs on facilities with existing thermal oxidizers.
To estimate the impact of the additional monitoring equipment (i.e., a
data logging system), a cost of $7,000 ($1,000 for each of the seven
facilities with an existing thermal oxidizer that is achieving the
NESHAP) was included in the capital cost estimate. No additional
capital costs were estimated for monitoring equipment for the new
thermal oxidizers since temperature monitors and recording devices are
standard equipment and are included in the cost estimates for new
thermal oxidizers.
The total annualized cost of the final NESHAP for eight new thermal
oxidizers is about $2,414,000. The average annual cost for a typical
facility that installs a new thermal oxidizer is $302,000. The
annualized cost estimate includes the cost of operation,
[[Page 17830]]
maintenance, supervisory labor, maintenance materials, utilities,
administrative charges, taxes, insurance, and capital recovery.
F. What Are the Economic Impacts?
Fourteen facilities owned by nine different companies produce wet-
formed fiberglass mat domestically. All of these facilities may
potentially be affected by the NESHAP because they are major sources or
are collocated with other sources (e.g., asphalt roofing plants) that
together may be major sources.
The estimated nationwide annualized cost of the NESHAP is $1.595
million. This cost estimate represents approximately 0.069 percent of
the 1995 sales revenues for domestically produced wet-formed fiberglass
mat. Based upon this estimate, it is reasonable to assume that market
price increases and production decreases resulting from the final
NESHAP are likely to be very small. Thus, we conclude that the final
NESHAP are not likely to have a significant economic impact on the wet-
formed fiberglass mat industry as a whole or on secondary markets such
as the labor market and foreign trade.
We performed a streamlined economic analysis to determine facility-
specific impacts. The facility-specific impacts are examined by
calculating the ratio of the estimated annualized costs of emission
controls for each facility to the estimated revenues per facility
(i.e., a cost-to-sales ratio) to assess the likelihood of facility
closures and employment impacts. Cost-to-sales ratios refer to the
change in the cost of emission controls divided by the sales revenue of
wet-formed fiberglass mat, the goods produced in the process for which
additional pollution control is required. This ratio can be estimated
for either individual firms or as an average for some set of firms such
as affected small business firms. While it has different significance
for different market situations, it is a good rough gauge of potential
impact. If costs for the individual (or group of) firms are completely
passed onto the purchasers of the good(s) being produced, the ratio is
an estimate of the price change (in percentage form after multiplying
the ratio by 100). If costs are completely absorbed by the producer,
this ratio is an estimate of changes in pretax profits (in percentage
form after multiplying the ratio by 100). The distribution of cost-to-
sales ratios across the whole market, the competitiveness of the
market, and profit-to-sales ratios are among the obvious factors that
may influence the significance of any particular cost-to-sales ratio
for an individual facility.
For these NESHAP, a cost-to-sales ratio exceeding 1 percent was
determined to be an initial indicator of the potential for a
significant facility impact. Each of the 14 facilities affected by the
final NESHAP has cost-to-sales ratios of less than 1 percent of sales.
Therefore, the facility-specific impacts are not considered to be
significant for any facility affected by the NESHAP. No facility is
likely to close as a result of the final NESHAP. Facilities in the wet-
formed fiberglass mat production industry are likely to increase the
price charged for the product in response to market price changes, to
absorb the costs with no price increase, or to respond with a
combination of these alternatives. The economic impacts to consumers
and producers of wet-formed fiberglass mat are anticipated to be
minimal. The generally small scale of the impacts suggests that there
will also be no significant impacts on markets for the products made
using wet-formed fiberglass mat. For more information, consult the
economic impact report entitled ``Economic Impact Analysis for the
Proposed National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants from
the Production of Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat,'' January 1999 (Docket A-
97-54).
IV. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
We have made changes in the final NESHAP for wet-formed fiberglass
mat production facilities in response to comments on the proposed rule.
The principal changes made since proposal are summarized below.
Additional discussion of changes and the rationale for these changes is
presented in section V of this preamble.
A. Operating Limits
In Sec. 63.2984, we have removed the operating limits for binder
urea-formaldehyde (UF) content, UF resin solids content, UF resin
solids per ton of product, product loss-on-ignition, and production
rate. They have been replaced with an operating limit for maximum
hourly urea-formaldehyde resin solids application rate, measured as the
urea-formaldehyde resin solids left in the product after curing.
B. Performance Test and Initial Compliance Provisions
We revised Sec. 63.2993 of the final rule to allow the use of
either EPA Method 318, ``Extractive FTIR Method for the Measurement of
Emissions from the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries'' for
measuring formaldehyde concentrations, or EPA Method 316,''Sampling and
Analysis for Formaldehyde Emissions from Stationary Sources in the
Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries.''
C. Monitoring Requirements
In Sec. 63.2984(a), we revised the rule to clarify that a deviation
of a process or control device parameter from a level established
during a performance test is a deviation from an operating limit and is
separately enforceable from the emission limit in Sec. 63.2983. We also
added a definition of Deviation in Sec. 63.3004 of the final rule.
In response to comments, we revised Sec. 63.2984(d) of the final
rule to delete the requirement to reference the operating limits in the
40 CFR part 70 operating permit application. Instead, you will include
the operating limits in the OMM plan and reference the OMM plan in the
40 CFR part 70 operating permit application. You must also include the
operating limits or ranges in the notification of compliance status and
the performance test report required under Sec. 63.3000(b) and (d),
respectively.
In the final rule, we have deleted Sec. 63.2988 and the requirement
that you have your OMM plan approved by the Administrator. You must
include in your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit a requirement that you
develop an OMM plan and operate according to it at all times. To revise
the operating limits specified in your OMM plan, you must conduct a new
performance test and include the revised operating limits in the
notification of compliance status and performance test results
submitted to the Administrator after the test. You must also include
the revised operating limits in the revised OMM plan. You may begin
operating according to the revised operating limits as soon as you have
completed the performance test demonstrating compliance.
We revised Sec. 63.2994(b)(1) of the final rule to allow the gas
temperature monitoring device to be installed either at the exit of the
combustion zone or at the location specified by the manufacturer.
However, the temperature monitoring device must be installed in a
location before any heat recovery or heat exchange equipment, and it
must remain in the same location for both the performance test and the
continuous monitoring of the temperature.
In response to comments, we have revised the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.2996 so that you must monitor and record the
data needed to calculate the hourly urea-formaldehyde resin solids
application rate.
[[Page 17831]]
D. Definitions
In response to comments, we replaced the definition of Binder
formulation urea formaldehyde content with a definition of Urea
formaldehyde content in binder formulation for clarification purposes.
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
We received five comment letters on the proposed NESHAP for wet-
formed fiberglass mat production. A copy of each comment letter is
available for public inspection in the docket for the rulemaking.
We reviewed and carefully considered all of the comments received
and made changes to the rule where appropriate. A summary of responses
to major comments received on the proposed rule is presented below.
Additional discussion of our responses to public comments is presented
in the document ``National Emission Standards for Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production--Background for Promulgated Standards, Comment and
Response Document'' which is in the docket.
Comment: One commenter stated that basing the operating limits and
monitoring requirements on resin free-formaldehyde content, binder UF
content, resin UF solids content, resin UF solids content per ton of
product, and product loss-on-ignition (LOI) is not practical because
most manufacturers do not have a single product that has the maximum
value for all these parameters. Therefore, the facility operators would
need to perform several performance tests using different products with
the maximum for each of these variables.
The commenter recommended that EPA specify an operating standard
and monitoring requirement only for urea-formaldehyde (dry) weight per
roofing square (100 square feet) of product. According to the
commenter, formaldehyde is emitted as the UF binder cures and bonds the
glass fibers together into a mat. The greater the amount of UF binder
solids per square of mat, the greater the formaldehyde emissions per
square of mat, according to the commenter.
The commenter suggested using the following equation for
calculating the pounds of UF solids per square of mat:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AP02.020
Where:
LOI = loss on ignition (percent);
UFL = UF-to-latex ratio in the binder (percent of UF solids in total
combined solids for UF and latex);
MW = weight of the mat per square (pounds per roofing square).
Response: We agree with the commenter that the suggested monitoring
parameters better predict potential emissions than those in the
proposed standards and offer greater operating flexibility. We have
revised the testing, monitoring, and operating limit requirements in
the final rule to reflect the approach recommended by the commenter.
The final rule establishes an operating limit for UF solids hourly
application rate. This operating limit is based on the equation
suggested by the commenter, with the addition of a term for the glass
mat production rate (squares per hour) so the hourly UF solids
application rate is calculated.
You must conduct the performance test while producing a product
with the greatest hourly UF solids application rate. The hourly UF
solids application rate is the product of UF solids per square of mat
times the hourly production rate in squares. The hourly UF solids
application rate achieved during the initial performance test will
become an operating limit that you cannot exceed after the test. After
the compliance test, you must monitor the parameters used to calculate
the hourly UF solids application rate and use Equation 3 of
Sec. 63.2995 of the final rule to ensure compliance with the operating
limit for hourly UF solids application rate.
We continue to believe that the resin free-formaldehyde content is
an important variable affecting emissions. Therefore, the final rule
still requires an operating limit for the resin free-formaldehyde
content. The operating limit established for the resin free-
formaldehyde content during the initial performance test must not be
exceeded after the initial performance test. Continuous compliance with
the operating limit will be determined through resin purchase
specifications and records. These records are the minimum data
requirements necessary to verify continuous compliance with the
operating limit.
Comment: One commenter asked EPA to revise the provisions of
Sec. 63.2989(a)(4) and (b) for changing an approved OMM plan. As
currently written, a facility that has proposed changes to its approved
plan must continue to operate according to the approved plan pending
the Administrator's approval of the proposed changes. The commenter
advocates that a facility be allowed to operate according to the
proposed changes, pending the Administrator's approval of the revised
plan, after they have demonstrated compliance with the formaldehyde
emission limits. The commenter stated that the suggested change is
consistent with the title V permit application shield.
Response: The EPA believes the commenter is incorrect that there is
a corresponding provision for permit revisions in title V of the CAA or
the permit regulations in 40 CFR part 70. The permit application shield
applies only to the original permit application and renewals. The
shield protects the facility from enforcement actions for operating
without a permit in cases where the facility submits an application on
time, but there are delays in issuing the permit. However, the permit
application shield does not apply to permit revisions. A facility owner
or operator submitting an application to revise their operating permit
must operate under the approved permit until the revised permit is
approved.
However, we have revised the provisions of Sec. 63.2988 to delete
the provisions requiring the Administrator's approval of a facility's
OMM plan. We have also modified the provisions of Sec. 63.2989(a)(1)
through (4) to allow a facility to make changes to the OMM plan without
the requirement for obtaining the Administrator's approval. Changes in
operating limits still require another performance test to verify
compliance. In addition, we have revised Sec. 63.2984(d) of the final
rule to delete the requirement to reference the operating standards and
their allowable ranges or limits in the 40 CFR part 70 permit. Instead,
your OMM plan must be incorporated by reference in your title V permit.
These changes allow you to revise the allowable ranges or limits of the
operating standards without reopening your permit or going through an
approval process. We have also added paragraph (c) to Sec. 63.2989
which provides that if you can anticipate potential changes to
operating conditions or multiple operating conditions while
demonstrating compliance during an initial or most recent performance
test, then those anticipated operating conditions could be accounted
for in the OMM plan, and the plan would not need to be revised later.
The purpose of the OMM plan is to ensure compliance while at the same
time allowing the owner or operator of the affected source flexibility
to operate under representative conditions for the affected source.
Comment: One commenter asked EPA to revise Sec. 63.2993 to allow
the use of EPA Method 318, ``Extractive Fourier Transfer Infrared
Spectrometry (FTIR)
[[Page 17832]]
for Measurement of Emissions from the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass
Industries,'' for measuring formaldehyde concentrations.
Response: We agree with the commenter that facilities should be
able to use FTIR, as specified in EPA Method 318, to measure
formaldehyde concentrations. Therefore, Sec. 63.2993 of the final rule
has been revised to allow the use of either EPA Method 316, ``Sampling
and Analysis for Formaldehyde Emissions from Stationary Sources in the
Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries,'' or EPA Method 318 (FTIR)
to measure formaldehyde concentrations.
Comment: The proposal preamble stated that EPA estimates that only
one of the two small business companies in the glass mat industry will
have to install an add-on control device at its plant (65 FR 34289). As
stated in the preamble, EPA estimates that the annual control cost for
this one small business would not exceed 1 percent of total sales of
the company. A representative of the facility in question disagreed
with EPA's estimate and stated that if this facility is required to
install a thermal oxidizer, the cost-to-sales ratio would be greater
than 1 percent of sales. The comment letter and included test report
for this glass mat facility indicated that total HAP emissions from the
wet-formed fiberglass mat production line at the plant are less than 10
tons per year.
Response: We estimated the annualized cost of a thermal oxidizer
for the facility in question based on the volumetric flow rate from the
drying and curing oven submitted by the facility in response to the EPA
survey. We had no other site-specific information that would have
resulted in a more accurate cost estimate. The survey response from the
facility reported a volumetric flow rate from the glass mat line stack
of 747 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). Based on this flow rate,
we estimated that the total annual cost would be 0.344 percent of
annual sales for the company. However, the flow rate reported in the
test report submitted with the comment letter was 2,520 scfm. We
revised the estimated annual add-on control costs using this higher
flow rate, but the revised annual cost is still less than the threshold
(1.0 percent of sales) used as an indicator in considering whether the
rule has a significant economic impact on small businesses.
Since the estimated cost as a percentage of sales is relatively
minimal, it is anticipated that the final rule will not have a
significant impact on this company's profitability. Nonetheless, EPA
has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities by
providing flexibility by offering a choice of compliance and monitoring
options. Compliance options include mass emission limits or percent
reduction standards. Compliance with the standards can be achieved
through the use of a thermal oxidizer, other control devices, or
process modifications that meet the standards. Finally, if the facility
in question, after considering all operations present at the source, is
not a major source of HAP emissions, it would not be subject to the
NESHAP and would have no compliance costs as a result of the standards.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.
B. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the rule.
The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State law unless the EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the rule.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and the EPA's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to
Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from its
federalism official stating that EPA has met the requirements of
Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
Today's rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
This is because today's rule applies to affected sources in the wet-
formed fiberglass mat industry, not to State or local governments. Nor
will State law be preempted, or any mandates be imposed on State or
local government. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive
Order do not apply to today's final rule. The EPA notes, however, that
although not required to do so by this Executive Order (or otherwise),
EPA did consult with State and local officials during development of
today's final rule.
[[Page 17833]]
C. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
known wet-formed fiberglass mat production facility is located within
the jurisdiction of any tribal government. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
D. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns the environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it establishes an environmental standard
based on available technology rather than reduction of health risk. No
children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative
technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a
reasonable cost. Furthermore, today's final rule has been determined
not to be a economically significant regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, it must have developed, under section 203 of the UMRA, a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that this final rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The EPA has also determined that this
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments since it contains no requirements
that apply to such governments or that impose obligations upon them.
The total nationwide capital cost for the standard is estimated at $5.3
million; the annualized nationwide cost is estimated at $2.4 million.
Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of the
UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has
less than 750 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is
a government of a city, county, town, school district or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of the final rule on small
entities, we have determined that only two of the nine companies
producing wet-formed fiberglass mat are small businesses. One of these
small businesses is not anticipated to incur emission control costs
because it already has controls in place which should achieve the MACT
emission levels. Therefore, only one small firm in the wet-formed
fiberglass mat production industry is likely to incur emission control
costs as a result of the rule. After the proposed rule was published,
the company submitted information indicating that HAP emissions from
the facility's glass mat line are less than 10 tons per year and, thus,
it is not a major source. However, this particular glass mat line is
collocated with an asphalt roofing manufacturing facility and emissions
from all collocated sources, in aggregate, must be considered in
determining whether a source is a major source. The company also stated
in their letter that if this facility is required to install a thermal
oxidizer as a result of the rule, their cost-to-sales ratio would be
greater than 1 percent. As a result, EPA revised the estimated annual
add-on control costs for this facility using the higher flow rate of
2,520 scfm as reported in the comment from this facility. However, the
revised annual cost-to-
[[Page 17834]]
sales ratio is still less than the threshold (1.0 percent of sales)
used as an indicator in considering whether the rule has a significant
economic impact on small businesses. As a result of the increased costs
of emission controls, this small entity in the affected industry will
likely either increase the price of its product in response to a market
change in price, will absorb the cost increase with no price increase,
or will respond with a combination of these responses. Since the
estimated costs as a percentage of sales are relatively minimal, it is
anticipated that the rule will not have a significant impact on this
company's profitability if, indeed, it is a major source and subject to
the NESHAP.
Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of the rule on small entities by providing
flexibility by offering a choice of compliance and monitoring options.
Compliance options include mass emission limits or percent reduction
standards. Compliance with the final standards can be achieved through
the use of a thermal oxidizer or other control device. Pollution
prevention practices, such as process modifications, are also included
in the rule.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No.
1964.01), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information,
Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be
downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
The information requirements contained in the NESHAP are necessary
to determine initial and continuous compliance with the emission
standards. The information requirements include the notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the NESHAP general
provisions, authorized under section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414),
which are mandatory for all owners or operators subject to national
emission standards. All information submitted to EPA for which a claim
of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies
in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The rule does not require any
notifications or reports beyond the minimum required by the general
provisions. Subpart HHHH requires additional records of information
specific to the wet-formed fiberglass mat production industry which are
needed to determine compliance with the rule.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection is estimated at 2,983 labor hours per year at an annual cost
of $98,183. This estimate includes an initial performance test and
report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time preparation of a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports of any
event in which the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual
deviation reports; notifications; the OMM plan; and recordkeeping. The
annualized capital cost associated with monitoring requirements is
estimated at $2,300.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating,
verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing, and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to
a collection of information; search existing data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, directs all Federal Agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in regulatory and procurement activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (VCS) are technical
standards (such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA requires Federal agencies to
provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when
an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards for the EPA's emissions sampling and
analysis reference methods and industry recommended materials analysis
procedures cited in this rule. Candidate voluntary consensus standards
for materials analysis were identified for product loss-on-ignition and
free-formaldehyde content. Consensus comments provided by industry
experts were that the candidate standards did not meet industry
materials analysis requirements. Therefore, EPA has determined that
these VCS were impractical for the wet-formed fiberglass mat production
NESHAP. The EPA, in consultation with TAPPI, has formulated industry-
specific materials analysis consensus standards which were proposed
along with the proposed rule and are published with the final rule as
appendix A and appendix B.
The EPA search to identify VCS for the EPA's emissions sampling and
analysis reference methods cited in this rule identified six candidate
standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA standard
reference methods. However, after reviewing available standards, EPA
determined that four of the candidate consensus standards identified
for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission
limits in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency,
documentation, and validation data. Two of the remaining candidate
consensus standards are new standards under development that EPA plans
to follow, review and consider adopting at a later date.
Section 63.2993 of subpart HHHH lists the EPA testing methods.
These testing methods have been used by States and industry for more
than 10 years.
I. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the SBREFA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. Therefore, we will submit a
report containing this final rule and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Federal
[[Page 17835]]
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), and therefore will be effective
April 11, 2002.
J. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The EPA has determined that this rule
will not affect in a material way productivity, competition, or prices
in the energy sector. The rule will not create a serious inconsistency
or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another
agency regarding energy. In addition, it will not raise novel legal or
policy issues related to energy arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Orders
12866 and 13211.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 19, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart HHHH to read as follows:
Subpart HHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.2980 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.2981 Does this subpart apply to me?
63.2982 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
Emission Limitations
63.2983 What emission limits must I meet?
63.2984 What operating limits must I meet?
63.2985 When do I have to comply with these standards?
63.2986 How do I comply with the standards?
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan
63.2987 What must my operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OMM)
plan include?
63.2988 [Reserved]
63.2989 How do I change my (OMM) plan?
63.2990 Can I conduct short-term experimental production runs that
cause parameters to deviate from operating limits?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.2991 When must I conduct performance tests?
63.2992 How do I conduct a performance test?
63.2993 What test methods must I use in conducting performance
tests?
63.2994 How do I verify the performance of monitoring equipment?
63.2995 What equations must I use to determine compliance?
Monitoring Requirements
63.2996 What must I monitor?
63.2997 What are the requirements for monitoring devices?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.2998 What records must I maintain?
63.2999 In what form and for how long must I maintain records?
63.3000 What notifications and reports must I submit?
Other Requirements and Information
63.3001 What sections of the general provisions apply to me?
63.3002 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.3003 Incorporation by reference.
63.3004 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.3005--63.3079 [Reserved].
Tables to Subpart HHHH of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart HHHH--Minimum Requirements for Monitoring and
Recordkeeping
Table 2 to Subpart HHHH--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) to Subpart HHHH
Appendices to Subpart HHHH of Part 63
Appendix A to Subpart HHHH--Method for Determining Free-Formaldehyde
in Urea-Formaldehyde Resins by Sodium Sulfite (Iced & Cooled)
Appendix B to Subpart HHHH--Method for the Determination of Loss-on-
Ignition
Subpart HHHH--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.2980 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for emissions from facilities that produce wet-
formed fiberglass mat. This subpart also establishes requirements to
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission
limitations.
Sec. 63.2981 Does this subpart apply to me?
You must comply with this subpart if you meet the criteria in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:
(a) You own or operate a drying and curing oven at a wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facility.
(b) Your drying and curing oven or the facility at which your
drying and curing oven is located is a major source of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP). A major source is any stationary source or group of
stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common
control that emits or can potentially emit, considering controls, in
the aggregate, 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year of a single
HAP or 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year of any combination of
HAP.
Sec. 63.2982 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing
affected source. The affected source (the portion of your plant covered
by this subpart) is each wet-formed fiberglass mat drying and curing
oven.
(b) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced
construction of the affected source after May 26, 2000, and you meet
the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.2981 at start-up.
(c) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
(d) An affected source is existing if it is not new or
reconstructed.
Emission Limitations
Sec. 63.2983 What emission limits must I meet?
(a) You must limit the formaldehyde emissions from each drying and
curing oven by either:
(1) Limiting emissions of formaldehyde to 0.03 kilograms or less
per megagram (0.05 pounds per ton) of fiberglass mat produced; or
[[Page 17836]]
(2) Reducing uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions by 96 percent or
more.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 63.2984 What operating limits must I meet?
(a) You must maintain operating parameters within established
limits or ranges specified in your operation, maintenance, and
monitoring (OMM) plan described in Sec. 63.2987. If there is a
deviation of any of the specified parameters from the limit or range
specified in the OMM plan, you must address the deviation according to
paragraph (b) of this section. You must comply with the operating
limits specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
(1) You must operate the thermal oxidizer so that the average
operating temperature in any 3-hour block period does not fall below
the temperature established during your performance test and specified
in your OMM plan.
(2) You must not use a resin with a free-formaldehyde content
greater than that of the resin used during your performance test and
specified in your OMM plan.
(3) You must operate the wet-formed fiberglass mat production
process so that the average urea formaldehyde resin solids application
rate in any 3-hour block period does not exceed the average application
rate achieved during your performance test and specified in your OMM
plan.
(4) If you use an add-on control device other than a thermal
oxidizer or wish to monitor an alternative parameter and comply with a
different operating limit, you must obtain approval for the alternative
monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f). You must include the approved
alternative monitoring and operating limits in the OMM plan specified
in Sec. 63.2987.
(b) When during a period of normal operations you detect that an
operating parameter deviates from the limit or range established in
paragraph (a) of this section, you must initiate corrective actions
within 1 hour according to the provisions of your OMM plan. During
periods of start up, shut down, or malfunction you must follow your
start up, shut down and malfunction plan (SSMP). The corrective action
actions must be completed in an expeditious manner as specified in the
OMM plan or SSMP.
(c) You must maintain and inspect control devices according to the
procedures specified in the OMM plan.
(d) You must include the operating limits specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section and their allowable ranges or levels
in your OMM plan. Your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit for the drying
and curing oven must contain a requirement that you develop and operate
according to an OMM plan at all times.
(e) If you use a thermal oxidizer or other control device to
achieve the emission limits in Sec. 63.2983, you must capture and
convey the formaldehyde emissions from each drying and curing oven
according to the procedures in chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice'' (23rd Edition). This
publication is incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.3003.
Sec. 63.2985 When do I have to comply with these standards?
(a) Existing drying and curing ovens must be in compliance with
this subpart no later than April 11, 2005.
(b) New or reconstructed drying and curing ovens must be in
compliance with this subpart at startup or by April 11, 2002, whichever
is later.
(c) If your facility is an area source that increases its emissions
or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of
hazardous air pollutants, the following apply:
(1) Any portion of the existing facility that is a new affected
source or a new reconstructed affected source must be in compliance
upon startup.
(2) All other parts of the source must be in compliance with this
subpart 1 year after becoming a major source or by April 11, 2005,
whichever is later.
Sec. 63.2986 How do I comply with the standards?
(a) You must install, maintain, and operate a thermal oxidizer or
other control device or implement a process modification that reduces
formaldehyde emissions from each drying and curing oven to the emission
limits specified in Sec. 63.2983.
(b) You must comply with the operating limits specified in
Sec. 63.2984. The operating limits prescribe the requirements for
demonstrating continuous compliance based on the OMM plan. You must
begin complying with the operating limits on the date by which you must
complete the initial performance test.
(c) You must conduct a performance test according to Secs. 63.2991,
63.2992, and 63.2993 to demonstrate compliance for each drying and
curing oven subject to the emission limits in Sec. 63.2983, and to
establish or modify the operating limits or ranges for process or
control device parameters that will be monitored to demonstrate
continuous compliance.
(d) You must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate devices that
monitor the parameters specified in your OMM plan at the frequency
specified in the plan. All continuous parameter monitoring systems must
be installed and operating no later than the applicable compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.2985.
(e) You must prepare and follow a written OMM plan as specified in
Sec. 63.2987.
(f) You must comply with the monitoring, recordkeeping,
notification, and reporting requirements of this subpart as required by
Secs. 63.2996 through 63.3000.
(g) You must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) You must be in compliance with the emission limits in
Sec. 63.2983 and the operating limits in Sec. 63.2984 at all times,
except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
(2) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1).
(3) You must develop and implement a written SSMP according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). The SSMP must address the startup,
shutdown, and corrective actions taken for malfunctioning process and
air pollution control equipment.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan
Sec. 63.2987 What must my operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OMM)
plan include?
(a) You must prescribe the monitoring that will be performed to
ensure compliance with these emission limitations. Minimum monitoring
requirements are listed in table 1 of this subpart. Your plan must
specify the items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section:
(1) Each process and control device to be monitored, the type of
monitoring device that will be used, and the operating parameters that
will be monitored.
(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the
parameter values will be determined and recorded.
(3) The operating limits or ranges for each parameter that
represent continuous compliance with the emission limits in
Sec. 63.2983. Operating limits and ranges must be based on values of
the monitored parameters recorded during performance tests.
(b) You must establish routine and long-term maintenance and
inspection
[[Page 17837]]
schedules for each control device. You must incorporate in the
schedules the control device manufacturer's recommendations for
maintenance and inspections or equivalent procedures. If you use a
thermal oxidizer, the maintenance schedule must include procedures for
annual or more frequent inspection of the thermal oxidizer to ensure
that the structural and design integrity of the combustion chamber is
maintained. At a minimum, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs
(b)(1) through (10) of this section:
(1) Inspect all burners, pilot assemblies, and pilot sensing
devices for proper operation. Clean pilot sensor if necessary.
(2) Ensure proper adjustment of combustion air and adjust if
necessary.
(3) Inspect, when possible, all internal structures (such as
baffles) to ensure structural integrity per the design specifications.
(4) Inspect dampers, fans, and blowers for proper operation.
(5) Inspect motors for proper operation.
(6) Inspect, when possible, combustion chamber refractory lining.
Clean and repair or replace lining if necessary.
(7) Inspect the thermal oxidizer shell for proper sealing,
corrosion, and hot spots.
(8) For the burn cycle that follows the inspection, document that
the thermal oxidizer is operating properly and make any necessary
adjustments.
(9) Generally observe whether the equipment is maintained in good
operating condition.
(10) Complete all necessary repairs as soon as practicable.
(c) You must establish procedures for responding to operating
parameter deviations. At a minimum, the procedures must include the
information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter
deviation.
(2) Actions for correcting the deviation and returning the
operating parameters to the allowable ranges or limits.
(3) Procedures for recording the date and time that the deviation
began and ended, and the times corrective actions were initiated and
completed.
(d) Your plan must specify the recordkeeping procedures to document
compliance with the emissions and operating limits. Table 1 of this
subpart establishes the minimum recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 63.2988 [Reserved]
Sec. 63.2989 How do I change my OMM plan?
Changes to the operating limits or ranges in your OMM plan require
a new performance test.
(a) In order to revise the ranges or levels established for your
operating limits in Sec. 63.2984, you must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the Administrator
as specified in Sec. 63.7(b) to revise your operating ranges or limits.
(2) After completing the performance test to demonstrate that
compliance with the emissions limits can be achieved at the revised
levels of the operating limits, you must submit the performance test
results and the revised operating limits as part of the notification of
compliance status required under Sec. 63.9(h).
(b) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance procedures
in your plan that are specified in Sec. 63.2987(b), you do not need to
conduct a new performance test.
(c) If you plan to operate your process or control device under
alternative operating conditions and do not wish to revise your OMM
plan when you change operating conditions, you can perform a separate
compliance test to establish operating limits for each condition. You
can then include the operating limits for each condition in your OMM
plan. After completing the performance tests, you must record the date
and time when you change operations from one condition to another, the
condition under which you are operating, and the operating limits that
apply under that condition. If you can perform a single performance
test that establishes the most stringent operating limits that cover
all alternative operating conditions, then you do not need to comply
with the provisions of this paragraph.
Sec. 63.2990 Can I conduct short-term experimental production runs
that cause parameters to deviate from operating limits?
With the approval of the Administrator, you may conduct short-term
experimental production runs during which your operating parameters
deviate from the operating limits. Experimental runs may include, but
are not limited to, runs using resin with a higher free-formaldehyde
content than specified in the OMM plan, or using experimental pollution
prevention techniques. To conduct a short-term experimental production
run, you must complete the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section.
(a) Prepare an application to the Administrator for approval to
conduct the experimental production runs. Your application must include
the items listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) The purpose of the experimental production run.
(2) Identification of the affected line.
(3) An explanation of how the operating parameters will deviate
from the previously approved ranges and limits.
(4) The duration of the experimental production run.
(5) The date and time of the experimental production run.
(6) A description of any emission testing to be performed during
the experimental production run.
(b) Submit the application to the Administrator for approval at
least 30 days before you conduct the experimental production run.
(c) If you conduct such experimental production runs without first
receiving approval from the Administrator, then you must conduct a
performance test under those same experimental production run
conditions to show that you were in compliance with the formaldehyde
emission limits in Sec. 63.2983.
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.2991 When must I conduct performance tests?
You must conduct a performance test for each drying and curing oven
subject to this subpart according to the provisions in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section:
(a) Initially. You must conduct an initial performance test no
later than 180 days after the applicable compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.2985. The initial performance test is used to demonstrate
initial compliance and establish operating parameter limits and ranges
to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
standards.
(b) Every 5 years. You must conduct a performance test every 5
years as part of renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating permit.
(c) To change your OMM plan. You must conduct a performance test
according to the requirements specified in Sec. 63.2992 to change the
limit or range for any operating limit specified in your OMM plan
established during a previous compliance test.
[[Page 17838]]
Sec. 63.2992 How do I conduct a performance test?
(a) You must verify the performance of monitoring equipment as
specified in Sec. 63.2994 before performing the test.
(b) You must conduct the performance test according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.7.
(c) You must conduct the performance test under the conditions
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) The resin must have the highest specified free-formaldehyde
content that will be used.
(2) You must operate at the maximum feasible urea-formaldehyde
resin solids application rate (pounds urea-formaldehyde resin solids
applied per hour) that will be used.
(d) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
operating parameters that you will use to demonstrate continuous
compliance after the test. These parameters are listed in table 1 of
this subpart.
(e) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(f) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance
test as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at
least 1 hour.
Sec. 63.2993 What test methods must I use in conducting performance
tests?
(a) Use EPA Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for selecting the
sampling port location and the number of sampling ports.
(b) Use EPA Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) for measuring the
volumetric flow rate.
(c) Use EPA Method 316 or 318 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) for
measuring the concentration of formaldehyde.
(d) Use the method contained in appendix A of this subpart or the
resin purchase specification and the vendor specification sheet for
each resin lot for determining the free-formaldehyde content in the
urea-formaldehyde resin.
(e) Use the method in appendix B of this subpart for determining
product loss-on-ignition.
Sec. 63.2994 How do I verify the performance of monitoring equipment?
(a) Before conducting the performance test, you must take the steps
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Install and calibrate all process equipment, control devices,
and monitoring equipment.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the continuous monitoring
system (CMS) according to Sec. 63.8(e) which specifies the general
requirements and requirements for notifications, the site-specific
performance evaluation plan, conduct of the performance evaluation, and
reporting of performance evaluation results.
(b) If you use a thermal oxidizer, the temperature monitoring
device must meet the performance and equipment specifications listed in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) The temperature monitoring device must be installed either at
the exit of the combustion zone of each thermal oxidizer, or at the
location specified by the manufacturer. The temperature monitoring
device must also be installed in a location before any heat recovery or
heat exchange equipment, and it must remain in the same location for
both the performance test and the continuous monitoring of temperature.
(2) The recorder response range must include zero and 1.5 times the
average temperature required in Sec. 63.2984(a)(1).
(3) The measurement method or reference method for calibration must
be a National Institute of Standards and Technology calibrated
reference thermocouple-potentiometer system or an alternate reference
subject to the approval of the Administrator.
Sec. 63.2995 What equations must I use to determine compliance?
(a) Percent reduction for formaldehyde. To determine compliance
with the percent reduction formaldehyde emission standard, use equation
1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AP02.021
Where:
Ef = Formaldehyde control efficiency, percent.
Mi = Mass flow rate of formaldehyde entering the control
device, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
Mo = Mass flow rate of formaldehyde exiting the control
device, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
(b) Formaldehyde mass emissions rate. To determine compliance with
the kilogram per megagram (pound per ton) formaldehyde emission
standard, use equation 2 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AP02.022
Where:
E = Formaldehyde mass emissions rate, kilograms (pounds) of
formaldehyde per megagram (ton) of fiberglass mat produced.
M = Formaldehyde mass emissions rate, kilograms (pounds) per hour.
P = The wet-formed fiberglass mat production rate during the emissions
sampling period, including any material trimmed from the final product,
megagrams (tons) per hour.
(c) Urea-formaldehyde (UF) resin solids application rate. To
determine the UF resin solids application rate, use equation 3 of this
section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AP02.023
Where:
UF solids/hour = UF resin solids application rate (pounds per hour).
LOI = loss on ignition (weight faction), or pound of organic binder per
pound of mat.
UFL = UF-to-latex ratio in the binder (mass fraction of UF resin solids
in total combined resin solids for UF and latex), or pound of UF solids
per pound of total resin solids (UF and latex).
MW = weight of the final mat per square (pounds per roofing square).
SQ = roofing squares produced per hour.
Monitoring Requirements
Sec. 63.2996 What must I monitor?
You must monitor the parameters listed in table 1 of this subpart
and any other parameters specified in your OMM plan. The parameters
must be monitored, at a minimum, at the corresponding frequencies
listed in table 1 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.2997 What are the requirements for monitoring devices?
(a) If formaldehyde emissions are controlled using a thermal
oxidizer, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2)
of this section:
(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device to monitor
and record continuously the thermal oxidizer temperature at the exit of
the combustion zone before any substantial
[[Page 17839]]
heat exchange occurs or at the location consistent with the
manufacturer's recommendations.
(2) Continuously monitor the thermal oxidizer temperature and
determine and record the average temperature in 15-minute and 3-hour
block averages. You may determine the average temperature more
frequently than every 15 minutes and every 3 hours, but not less
frequently.
(b) If formaldehyde emissions are controlled by process
modifications or a control device other than a thermal oxidizer, you
must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate devices to monitor the
parameters established in your OMM plan at the frequency established in
the plan.
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.2998 What records must I maintain?
You must maintain records according to the procedures of
Sec. 63.10. You must maintain the records listed in paragraphs (a)
through (g) of this section.
(a) All records required by Sec. 63.10. Table 2 of this subpart
presents the applicable requirements of the general provisions.
(b) The OMM plan.
(c) Records of values of monitored parameters listed in table 1 of
this subpart to show continuous compliance with each operating limit
specified in table 1 of this subpart.
(d) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the control
devices.
(e) If an operating parameter deviation occurs, you must record:
(1) The date, time, and duration of the operating parameter
deviation;
(2) A brief description of the cause of the operating parameter
deviation;
(3) The dates and times at which corrective actions were initiated
and completed;
(4) A brief description of the corrective actions taken to return
the parameter to the limit or to within the range specified in the OMM
plan; and
(5) A record of whether the deviation occurred during a period of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
(f) Keep all records specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v)
related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(g) If you operate your process or control device under alternative
operating condition and have established operating limits for each
condition as specified in Sec. 63.2989(c), then you must keep records
of the date and time you changed operations from one condition to
another, the condition under which you are operating, and the
applicable operating limits for that condition.
Sec. 63.2999 In what form and for how long must I maintain records?
(a) You must maintain each record required by this subpart for 5
years. You must maintain the most recent 2 years of records at the
facility. The remaining 3 years of records may be retained offsite.
(b) Your records must be readily available and in a form so they
can be easily inspected and reviewed. You can keep the records on paper
or an alternative media, such as microfilm, computer, computer disks,
magnetic tape, or on microfiche.
Sec. 63.3000 What notifications and reports must I submit?
(a) You must submit all notifications and reports required by the
applicable general provisions and this section. Table 2 of this subpart
presents the applicable requirements of the general provisions.
(b) Notification of compliance status. You must submit the
notification of compliance status, including the performance test
results, the operating limits or ranges as determined during the
performance test, and other information specified in Sec. 63.9(h),
before the close of business on the 60th calendar day after you
complete the performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
(c) Semiannual compliance reports. You must submit semiannual
compliance reports according to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) Dates for submitting reports. Unless the Administrator has
agreed to a different schedule for submitting reports under
Sec. 63.10(a), you must deliver or postmark each semiannual compliance
report no later than 30 days following the end of each semiannual
reporting period. The first semiannual reporting period begins on the
compliance date for your affected source and ends on June 30 or
December 31, whichever date immediately follows your compliance date.
Each subsequent semiannual reporting period for which you must submit a
semiannual compliance report begins on July 1 or January 1 and ends 6
calendar months later. As required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3), you must begin
submitting quarterly compliance reports if you deviate from the
emission limits in Sec. 63.2983 or the operating limits in
Sec. 63.2984.
(2) Inclusion with title V report. For each affected source that is
subject to permitting regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and
for which the permitting authority has established dates for submitting
semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6
(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established
instead of according to the dates in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(3) Contents of reports. The semiannual compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (vi) of this
section:
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness
of the content of the report.
(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period.
(iv) A summary of the total duration of continuous parameter
monitoring system downtime during the semiannual reporting period and
the total duration of continuous parameter monitoring system downtime
as a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual
reporting period.
(v) The date of the latest continuous parameter monitoring system
certification or audit.
(vi) A description of any changes in the wet-formed fiberglass mat
manufacturing process, continuous parameter monitoring system, or add-
on control device since the last semiannual reporting period.
(4) No deviations. If there were no deviations from the emission
limit in Sec. 63.2983 or the operating limits in Sec. 63.2984, the
semiannual compliance report must include a statement to that effect.
If there were no periods during which the continuous parameter
monitoring systems were out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7),
the semiannual compliance report must include a statement to that
effect.
(5) Deviations. If there was a deviation from the emission limit in
Sec. 63.2983 or an operating limit in Sec. 63.2984, the semiannual
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(5)(i)
through (ix) of this section:
(i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(ii) The date and time that each continuous parameter monitoring
system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level
checks.
(iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous parameter
monitoring system was out-of-control, including the information in
Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during
[[Page 17840]]
a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
(v) The date and time that corrective actions were taken, a
description of the cause of the deviation, and a description of the
corrective actions taken.
(vi) A summary of the total duration of each deviation during the
semiannual reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the
total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period.
(vii) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during
the semiannual reporting period into those that were due to startup,
shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known
causes, and other unknown causes.
(viii) A brief description of the process units.
(ix) A brief description of the continuous parameter monitoring
system.
(d) Performance test reports. You must submit reports of
performance test results for add-on control devices no later than 60
days after completing the tests as specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(2). You
must include in the performance test reports the values measured during
the performance test for the parameters listed in table 1 of this
subpart and the operating limits or ranges to be included in your OMM
plan. For the thermal oxidizer temperature, you must include 15-minute
averages and the average for the three 1-hour test runs.
(e) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. If you have a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting period, you
must submit the reports specified Sec. 63.10(d)(5).
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.3001 What sections of the general provisions apply to me?
You must comply with the requirements of the general provisions of
40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as specified in table 2 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.3002 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or
a delegated authority, such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If
the Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or
tribal agency, then that agency is the primary enforcement authority.
If the Administrator has not delegated authority to your State, only
EPA enforces this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional
Office to find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is
delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(4) of this section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and
are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(1) The authority under Sec. 63.6(g) to approve alternatives to the
emission limits in Sec. 63.2983 and operating limits in Sec. 63.2984 is
not delegated.
(2) The authority under Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) to approve of
major alternatives (as defined in Sec. 63.90) to the test methods in
Sec. 63.2993 is not delegated.
(3) The authority under Sec. 63.8(f) to approve major alternatives
(as defined in Sec. 63.90) to the monitoring requirements in
Secs. 63.2996 and 63.2997 is not delegated.
(4) The authority under Sec. 63.10(f) to approve major alternatives
(as defined in Sec. 63.90) to recordkeeping, notification, and
reporting requirements in Secs. 63.2998 through 63.3000 is not
delegated.
Sec. 63.3003 Incorporation by reference.
(a) The following material is incorporated by reference and
referred to at Sec. 63.2984: chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice,'' American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists, (23rd edition, 1998). The
incorporation by reference of this material is approved by the Director
of the Office of the Federal Register as of the date of publication of
the final rule according to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This
material is incorporated as it exists on the date of approval and
notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal
Register.
(b) The materials referenced in this section are incorporated by
reference and are available for inspection at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 700, 7th Floor,
Washington, DC; and at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC. The material is also
available for purchase from the following address: Customer Service
Department, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH), 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240, telephone
number (513) 742-2020.
Sec. 63.3004 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Administrator means the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency or his or her authorized representative
(e.g., a State that has been delegated the authority to implement the
provisions of this part).
Binder application vacuum exhaust means the exhaust from the vacuum
system used to remove excess resin solution from the wet-formed
fiberglass mat before it enters the drying and curing oven.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limit, or operating
limit, or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart.
Drying and curing oven means the process section that evaporates
excess moisture from a fiberglass mat and cures the resin that binds
the fibers.
Emission limitation means an emission limit, operating limit, or
work practice standard.
Fiberglass mat production rate means the weight of finished
fiberglass mat produced per hour of production including any trim
removed after the binder is applied and before final packaging.
Loss-on-ignition means the percentage decrease in weight of
fiberglass mat measured before and after it has been ignited to burn
off the applied binder. The loss-on-ignition is used to monitor the
weight percent of binder in fiberglass mat.
Nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass mat manufacturing means the
production of a fiberglass mat by bonding glass fibers to each other
using a resin solution. Nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass mat
manufacturing is also referred to as wet-formed fiberglass mat
manufacturing.
Roofing square means the amount of finished product needed to cover
an area 10 feet by 10 feet (100 square feet) of finished roof.
Thermal oxidizer means an air pollution control device that uses
controlled flame combustion inside a combustion chamber to convert
[[Page 17841]]
combustible materials to noncombustible gases.
Urea-formaldehyde content in binder formulation means the mass-
based percent of urea-formaldehyde resin in the total binder mix as it
is applied to the glass fibers to form the mat.
Secs. 63.3005-63.3079 [Reserved].
Tables to Subpart HHHH of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart HHHH.--Minimum Requirements for Monitoring and
Recordkeeping
[As stated in Sec. 63.2998(c), you must comply with the minimum
requirements for monitoring and recordkeeping in the following table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must monitor these And record for the
parameters: At this frequency: monitored perameter:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizer Continuously........ 15-minute and 3-hour
temperature \a\. block averages.
2. Other process or control As specified in your As specified in your
device parameters specified OMM plan. OMM plan.
in your OMM \b\ plan.
3. Urea-formaldehyde resin On each operating The average lb/hr
solids application rate. day, calculate the value for each
average lb/hr product
application rate manufactured during
for each product the day.
manufactured during
that day.
4. Resin free-formaldehyde For each lot of The value for each
content. resin purchased. lot used during the
operating day.
5. Loss-on-ignition \c\..... Measured at least The value for each
once per day, for product
each product manufactured during
manufactured during the operating day.
that day.
6. UF-to-latex ratio in the For each batch of The value for each
binder \c\. binder prepared the batch of binder
operating day. prepared during the
operating day.
7. Weight of the final mat Each product The value for each
product per square (lb/ manufactured during product
roofing square)\c\. the operating day. manufactured during
the operating day.
8. Average nonwoven wet- For each product The average value
formed fiberglass mat manufactured during for each product
production rate (roofing the operating day. manufactured during
squares per the hour) \c\. operating day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Required if a thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde
emissions.
\b\ Required if process modifications or a control device other than a
thermal oxidizer is used to control emissions.
\c\ These parameters must be monitored and values recorded, but no
operating limits apply.
Table 2 to Subpart HHHH.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart HHHH
[As stated in Sec. 63.3001, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to
the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to subpart HHHH Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(4)............. General Applicability.... Yes
Sec. 63.1(a)(5)................. ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)-(8)............. ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.1(a)(9)................. ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(14)........... ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.1(b).................... Initial Applicability Yes
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)................. Applicability After Yes
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)................. ......................... Yes Some plants may be area
sources.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)................. ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)-(5)............. ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.1(d).................... ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(e).................... Applicability of Permit Yes
Program.
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions.............. Yes Additional definitions
in Sec. 63.3004.
Sec. 63.3....................... Units and Abbreviations.. Yes
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(3)............. Prohibited Activities.... Yes
Sec. 63.4(a)(4)................. ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.4(a)(5)................. ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................ Circumvention/ Yes
Severability.
Sec. 63.5(a).................... Construction/ Yes
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)................. Existing/Constructed/ Yes
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(2)................. ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(6)............. ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.5(c).................... ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(d).................... Application for Approval Yes
of Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e).................... Approval of Construction/ Yes
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f).................... Approval of Construction/ Yes
Reconstruction Based on
State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a).................... Compliance with Standards Yes
and Maintenance--
Applicability.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5)............. New and Reconstructed Yes
Sources-Dates.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................. ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)................. ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)............. Existing Sources Dates... Yes Sec. 63.2985 specifies
dates.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)............. ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)................. ......................... Yes
[[Page 17842]]
Sec. 63.6(d).................... ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e).................... Operation and Maintenance Yes Secs. 63.2984 and
Requirements. 63.2987 specify
additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(f).................... Compliance with Emission Yes
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(g).................... Alternative Standard..... Yes EPA retains approval
authority.
Sec. 63.6(h).................... Compliance with Opacity/ No Subpart HHHH does not
Visible Emissions specify opacity or
Standards. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)............ Extension of Compliance.. Yes
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)................ ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)................ ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.6(j).................... Exemption from Compliance Yes
Sec. 63.7(a).................... Performance Test Yes
Requirements--Applicabil
ity and Dates.
Sec. 63.7(b).................... Notification of Yes
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.7(c).................... Quality Assurance Program/ Yes
Test Plan.
Sec. 63.7(d).................... Testing Facilities....... Yes
Sec. 63.7(e).................... Conduct of Tests......... Yes Sec. 63.2991-63.2994
specify additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.7(f).................... Alternative Test Method.. Yes EPA retains approval
authority
Sec. 63.7(g).................... Data Analysis............ Yes
Sec. 63.7(h).................... Waiver of Tests.......... Yes
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2)............. Monitoring Requirements-- Yes
Applicability.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)................. ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................. ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.8(b).................... Conduct of Monitoring.... Yes
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)-(3)............. Continuous Monitoring Yes
System (CMS) Operation
and Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................. ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................. ......................... No Subpart HHHH does not
specify opacity or
visible emission
standards
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8)............. ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.8(d).................... Quality Control.......... Yes
Sec. 63.8(e).................... CMS Performance Yes
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)............. Alternative Monitoring Yes EPA retains approval
Method. authority
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................. Alternative to Relative No Subpart HHHH does not
Accuracy Test. require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems
(CEMS)
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)................. Data Reduction........... Yes
Sec. 63.8(g)(2)................. Data Reduction........... No Subpart HHHH does not
require the use of CEMS
or continuous opacity
monitoring systems
(COMS).
Sec. 63.8(g)(3)-(5)............. Data Reduction........... Yes
Sec. 63.9(a).................... Notification Yes
Requirements--Applicabil
ity.
Sec. 63.9(b).................... Initial Notifications.... Yes
Sec. 63.9(c).................... Request for Compliance Yes
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d).................... New Source Notification Yes
for Special Compliance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(e).................... Notification of Yes
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.9(f).................... Notification of Visible No Subpart HHHH does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)................. Additional CMS Yes
Notifications.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)-(3)............. ......................... No Subpart HHHH does not
require the use of COMS
or CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(3)............. Notification of Yes Sec. 63.3000(b)
Compliance Status. specifies additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4)................. ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(6)............. ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.9(i).................... Adjustment of Deadlines.. Yes
Sec. 63.9(j).................... Change in Previous Yes
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a)................... Recordkeeping/Reporting-- Yes
Applicability.
Sec. 63.10(b)................... General Recordkeeping Yes Sec. 63.2998 includes
Requirements. additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)................ Additional CMS Yes
Recordkeeping.
Sec. 63.10(c)(2)-(4)............ ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.10(c)(5)-(8)............ ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)................ ......................... No [Reserved].
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(15).......... ......................... Yes
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................ General Reporting Yes Sec. 63.3000 includes
Requirements. additional
requirements.
[[Page 17843]]
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................ Performance Test Results. Yes Sec. 63.3000 includes
additional requirements
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................ Opacity or Visible No Subpart HHHH does not
Emissions Observations. specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)-(5)............ Progress Reports/Startup, Yes
Shutdown, and
Malfunction Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)................ Additional CMS Reports-- No Subpart HHHH does not
General. require CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)................ Reporting results of CMS Yes
performance evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................ Excess Emission/CMS Yes
Performance Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................ COMS Data Reports........ No Subpart HHHH does not
specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(f)................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes EPA retains approval
Waiver. authority
Sec. 63.11...................... Control Device No Facilities subject to
Requirments--Applicabili subpart HHHH do not use
ty. flares as control
devices.
Sec. 63.12...................... State Authority and Yes
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses................ Yes
Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporation by No
Reference.
Sec. 63.15...................... Availability of Yes
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendices to Subpart HHHH of Part 63
Appendix A to Subpart HHHH--Method for Determining Free-Formaldehyde in
Urea-Formaldehyde Resins by Sodium Sulfite (Iced & Cooled)
1.0 Scope
This procedure corresponds to the Housing and Urban Development
method of determining free-formaldehyde in urea-formaldehyde resins.
This method applies to samples that decompose to yield formaldehyde
under the conditions of other free-formaldehyde methods. The primary
use is for urea-formaldehyde resins.
2.0 Part A--Testing Resins
Formaldehyde will react with sodium sulfite to form the sulfite
addition products and liberate sodium hydroxide (NaOH); however, at
room temperature, the methanol groups present will also react to
liberate NaOH. Titrate at 0 degrees Celsius ( deg.C) to minimize the
reaction of the methanol groups.
2.1 Apparatus Required.
2.1.1 Ice crusher.
2.1.2 One 100-milliliter (mL) graduated cylinder.
2.1.3 Three 400-mL beakers.
2.1.4 One 50-mL burette.
2.1.5 Analytical balance accurate to 0.1 milligrams (mg).
2.1.6 Magnetic stirrer.
2.1.7 Magnetic stirring bars.
2.1.8 Disposable pipettes.
2.1.9 Several 5-ounce (oz.) plastic cups.
2.1.10 Ice cube trays (small cubes).
2.2 Materials Required.
2.2.1 Ice cubes (made with distilled water).
2.2.2 A solution of 1 molar (M) sodium sulfite
(Na2SO3) (63 grams (g)
Na2SO3/500 mL water (H2O)
neutralized to thymolphthalein endpoint).
2.2.3 Standardized 0.1 normal (N) hydrochloric acid (HCl).
2.2.4 Thymolphthalein indicator (1.0 g thymolphthalein/199 g
methanol).
2.2.5 Sodium chloride (NaCl) (reagent grade).
2.2.6 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH).
2.3 Procedure.
2.3.1 Prepare sufficient quantity of crushed ice for three
determinations (two trays of cubes).
2.3.2 Put 70 cubic centimeters (cc) of 1 M
Na2SO3 solution into a 400-mL beaker. Begin
stirring and add approximately 100 g of crushed ice and 2 g of NaCl.
Maintain 0 deg.C during test, adding ice as necessary.
2.3.3 Add 10-15 drops of thymolphthalein indicator to the
chilled solution. If the solution remains clear, add 0.1 N NaOH
until the solution turns blue; then add 0.1 N HCl back to the
colorless endpoint. If the solution turns blue upon adding the
indicator, add 0.1 N HCl to the colorless endpoint.
2.3.4 On the analytical balance, accurately weigh the amount of
resin indicated under the ``Resin Sample Size'' chart (see below) as
follows.
Resin Sample Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample
Approximate free HCHO (percent) weight
(gram(s))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5......................................................... 10
0.5-1.0..................................................... 5
1.0-3.0..................................................... 2
3.0......................................................... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.3.4.1 Pour about 1 inch of resin into a 5 oz. plastic cup.
2.3.4.2 Determine the gross weight of the cup, resin, and
disposable pipette (with the narrow tip broken off) fitted with a
small rubber bulb.
2.3.4.3 Pipette out the desired amount of resin into the
stirring, chilled solution (approximately 1.5 to 2 g per pipette-
full).
2.3.4.4 Quickly reweigh the cup, resin, and pipette with the
bulb.
2.3.4.5 The resultant weight loss equals the grams of resin
being tested.
2.3.5 Rapidly titrate the solution with 0.1 N HCl to the
colorless endpoint described in Step 3 (2.3.3).
2.3.6 Repeat the test in triplicate.
2.4 Calculation.
2.4.1 The percent free-formaldehyde (%HCHO) is calculated as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AP02.024
2.4.2 Compute the average percent free-formaldehyde of the
three tests.
(Note: If the results of the three tests are not within a range
of 0.5 percent or if the average of the three tests does
not meet expected limits, carry out Part B and then repeat Part A.)
[[Page 17844]]
3.0 Part B--Standard Check
Part B ensures that test reagents used in determining percent
free-formaldehyde in urea-formaldehyde resins are of proper
concentration and that operator technique is correct. Should any
doubts arise in either of these areas, the formaldehyde standard
solution test should be carried out.
3.1 Preparation and Standardization of a 1 Percent Formalin
Solution.
Prepare a solution containing approximately 1 percent
formaldehyde from a stock 37 percent formalin solution. Standardize
the prepared solution by titrating the hydroxyl ions resulting from
the formation of the formaldehyde bisulfite complex.
3.2 Apparatus Required.
Note: All reagents must be American Chemical Society analytical
reagent grade or better.
3.2.1 One 1-liter (L) volumetric flask (class A).
3.2.2 One 250-mL volumetric flask (class A).
3.2.3 One 250-mL beaker.
3.2.4 One 100-mL pipette (class A).
3.2.5 One 10-mL pipette (class A).
3.2.6 One 50-mL graduated cylinder (class A).
3.2.7 A pH meter, standardized using pH 7 and pH 10 buffers.
3.2.8 Magnetic stirrer.
3.2.9 Magnetic stirring bars.
3.2.10 Several 5-oz. plastic cups.
3.2.11 Disposal pipettes.
3.2.12 Ice cube trays (small cubes).
3.3 Materials Required.
3.3.1 A solution of 37 percent formalin.
3.3.2 Anhydrous Na2SO3.
3.3.3 Distilled water.
3.3.4 Standardized 0.100 N HCl.
3.3.5 Thymolphthalein indicator (1.0 g thymolphthalein/199 g
methanol).
3.4 Preparation of Solutions and Reagents.
3.4.1 Formaldehyde Standard Solution (approximately 1 percent).
Measure, using a graduated cylinder, 27.0 mL of analytical reagent
37 percent formalin solution into a 1-L volumetric flask. Fill the
flask to volume with distilled water.
(Note: You must standardize this solution as described in
section 3.5. This solution is stable for 3 months.)
3.4.2 Sodium Sulfite Solution 1.0 M (used for standardization
of Formaldehyde Standard Solution). Quantitatively transfer, using
distilled water as the transfer solvent, 31.50 g of anhydrous
Na2SO3 into a 250-mL volumetric flask.
Dissolve in approximately 100 mL of distilled water and fill to
volume.
(Note: You must prepare this solution daily, but the calibration
of the Formaldehyde Standard Solution needs to be done only once.)
3.4.3 Hydrochloric Acid Standard Solution 0.100 M. This reagent
should be readily available as a primary standard that only needs to
be diluted.
3.5 Standardization.
3.5.1 Standardization of Formaldehyde Standard Solution.
3.5.1.1 Pipette 100.0 mL of 1 M sodium sulfite into a stirred
250-mL beaker.
3.5.1.2 Using a standardized pH meter, measure and record the
pH. The pH should be around 10. It is not essential the pH be 10;
however, it is essential that the value be accurately recorded.
3.5.1.3 To the stirring Na2SO3 solution,
pipette in 10.0 mL of Formaldehyde Standard Solution. The pH should
rise sharply to about 12.
3.5.1.4 Using the pH meter as a continuous monitor, titrate the
solution back to the original exact pH using 0.100 N HCl. Record the
milliliters of HCl used as titrant. (Note: Approximately 30 to 35 mL
of HCl will be required.)
3.5.1.5 Calculate the concentration of the Formaldehyde
Standard Solution using the equation as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AP02.025
3.6 Procedure.
3.6.1 Prepare a sufficient quantity of crushed ice for three
determinations (two trays of cubes).
3.6.2 Put 70 cc of 1 M Na2SO3 solution
into a 400-mL beaker. Begin stirring and add approximately 100 g of
crushed ice and 2 g NaCl. Maintain 0 deg.C during the test, adding
ice as necessary.
3.6.3 Add 10-15 drops of thymolphthalein indicator to the
chilled solution. If the solution remains clear, add 0.1 N NaOH
until the solution turns blue; then add 0.1 N HCl back to the
colorless endpoint. If the solution turns blue upon adding the
indicator, add 0.1 N HCl to the colorless endpoint.
3.6.4 On the analytical balance, accurately weigh a sample of
Formaldehyde Standard Solution as follows.
3.6.4.1 Pour about 0.5 inches of Formaldehyde Standard Solution
into a 5-oz. plastic cup.
3.6.4.2 Determine the gross weight of the cup, Formaldehyde
Standard Solution, and a disposable pipette fitted with a small
rubber bulb.
3.6.4.3 Pipette approximately 5 g of the Formaldehyde Standard
Solution into the stirring, chilled Na2SO3
solution.
3.6.4.4 Quickly reweigh the cup, Formaldehyde Standard
Solution, and pipette with the bulb.
3.6.4.5 The resultant weight loss equals the grams of
Formaldehyde Standard Solution being tested.
3.6.5 Rapidly titrate the solution with 0.1 N HCl to the
colorless endpoint in Step 3 (3.6.3).
3.6.6 Repeat the test in triplicate.
3.7 Calculation for Formaldehyde Standard Solution.
3.7.1 The percent free-formaldehyde (% HCHO) is calculated as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AP02.026
3.7.2 The range of the results of three tests should be no more
than 5 percent of the actual Formaldehyde Standard
Solution concentration. Report results to two decimal places.
3.8 Reference.
West Coast Adhesive Manufacturers Trade Association Test 10.1.
Appendix B to Subpart HHHH--Method for the Determination of Loss-on-
Ignition
1.0 Purpose
The purpose of this test is to determine the loss-on-ignition
(LOI) of wet-formed fiberglass mat.
2.0 Equipment
2.1 Scale sensitive to 0.001 gram (g).
2.2 Drying oven equipped with a means of constant temperature
regulation and mechanical air convection.
2.3 Furnace designed to heat to at least 625 deg.C (1,157
deg.F) and controllable to 25 deg.C (45
deg.F).
2.4 Crucible, high form, 250 milliliter (mL).
2.5 Desiccator.
2.6 Pan balance (see Note 2 in 4.9)
3.0 Sample Collection Procedure
3.1 Obtain a sample of mat in accordance with Technical
Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) method 1007
``Sample Location.''
3.2 Use a 5- to 10-g sample cut into pieces small enough to fit
into the crucible.
3.3 Place the sample in the crucible. (Note 1: To test without
the use of a crucible, see Note 2 after Section 4.8.)
3.4 Condition the sample in the furnace set at 105
3 deg.C (221 9 deg.F) for 5 minutes 30
seconds.
4.0 Procedure
4.1 Condition each sample by drying for 5 minutes
30 seconds at 105 3 deg.C (22 5 deg.F).
4.2 Remove the test sample from the furnace and cool in the
desiccator for 30 minutes in the standard atmosphere for testing
glass textiles.
4.3 Place the empty crucible in the furnace at 625
25 deg.C (1,157 45 deg.F). After 30 minutes, remove
and cool the crucible in the standard atmosphere (TAPPI method 1008)
for 30 minutes.
4.4 Identify each crucible with respect to each test sample of
mat.
4.5 Weigh the empty crucible to the nearest 0.001 g. Record
this weight as the tare mass, T.
[[Page 17845]]
4.6 Place the test sample in the crucible and weigh to the
nearest 0.001 g. Record this weight as the initial mass, A.
4.7 Place the test sample and crucible in the furnace and
ignite at 625 25 deg.C (1,157 45 deg.F).
4.8 After ignition for at least 30 minutes, remove the test
sample and crucible from the furnace and cool in the desiccator for
30 minutes in the standard atmosphere (TAPPI method 1008).
4.9 Remove each crucible, and test each sample separately from
the desiccator, and immediately weigh each sample to the nearest
0.001 g. Record this weight as the ignited mass, B. (Note 2: When it
is known that no ash residue separates from the test sample during
the weighing and igniting processes, you may weigh the sample
separately without the crucible. When this occurs, the tare mass (T)
equals zero. With appropriate care, you can dry and weigh a single
piece of mat and place with tongs into the ignition oven on
appropriate refractory supports. When the ignition time is over,
remove the sample as an intact fragile web and weigh it directly on
a pan balance.)
5.0 Calculation
5.1 Calculate the LOI for each sample as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11AP02.027
Where:
A = initial mass of crucible and sample before ignition (g);
B = mass of crucible and glass residue after ignition (g); and
T = tare mass of crucible, (g) (see Note 2).
5.2 Report the percent LOI of the glass mat to the nearest 0.1
percent.
6.0 Precision
The repeatability of this test method for measurements on
adjacent specimens from the same sample of mat is better than 1
percent.
[FR Doc. 02-7096 Filed 4-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P