[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60873-60886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27797]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042; FRL-9972-44-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT13
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing; Rotary Spin Lines Technology Review and
Revision of Flame Attenuation Lines Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action completes the final residual risk and technology
reviews (RTR) that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted
for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category regulated under
the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).
In this action, the EPA is readopting the existing emission limits for
formaldehyde, establishing emission limits for methanol, and a work
practice standard for phenol emissions from bonded rotary spin (RS)
lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. In addition, the EPA
is revising the emission standards promulgated on July 29, 2015, for
flame attenuation (FA) lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities by creating three subcategories of FA lines and establishing
emission limits for formaldehyde and methanol emissions, and either
emission limits or work practice standards for phenol emissions for
each subcategory of FA lines.
DATES: This final rule is effective on December 26, 2017.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC
West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Mr. Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email
address: [email protected]. For information about the applicability
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Ms. Sara Ayres, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: (312) 353-6266; and email address:
ayres.sara @epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
BDL below the detection limit
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CD-ROM Compact Disc Read-Only Memory
CDX Central Data Exchange
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FA flame attenuation
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
ICR information collection request
lbs/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PF phenol-formaldehyde
ppmv parts per million by volume
[[Page 60874]]
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RS rotary spin
RTR Risk and Technology Review
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper prediction limit
Background information. On August 29, 2017, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP based on our
technology review of the source category's bonded RS lines. In
addition, the proposal included certain revisions to the July 29, 2015,
emission standards for the bonded FA lines. In this action, we are
finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of
the more significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed
rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those
comments is available in the document titled, National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN)--Technology Review, Final
Amendments: Response to Public Comments on August 29, 2017 Proposal,
which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1042). A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language
that incorporates the changes in this action is also available in the
docket.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category in our August 29, 2017, notice?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments for formaldehyde emissions
from RS lines based on the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section
112(h) for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source
category?
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
A. Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Source Category
B. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category
C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(h) for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category
D. Amendments for FA Lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Source Category
E. Other Amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Table 1 includes the categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing........................... 327993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wool-fiberglass-manufacturing-national-emissions-standards. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical documents at this same website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by February 26, 2018. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised
[[Page 60875]]
with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.
This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the
rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the
Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a
demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the
Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy
to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S.
EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this review,
the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir.
2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (DC
Cir. 2013). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk
to public health remaining after application of the technology-based
standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required
within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards,
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review,
if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to
revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).\1\
Additionally, CAA section 112(h) allows the agency to adopt a work
practice standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard only if it
is ``not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or
enforce an emission standard for control of a hazardous air
pollutant.'' This phrase is defined as applying where ``the
Administrator determines that the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.'' CAA section 112(h)(1) and
(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section
112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008) (``If
EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards provide
an 'ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is free to readopt
those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, the EPA is finalizing the technology review for RS
lines in accordance with section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. In addition, the
EPA is amending certain emission standards promulgated on July 29,
2015, for FA lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
B. What is the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category and how
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP on
June 14, 1999 (62 FR 31695). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part
63, subpart NNN. The Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category
consists of facilities that produce wool fiberglass from sand,
feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, or any other
materials. This source category currently comprises three wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities operating bonded RS lines, and two
facilities operating bonded FA lines. The EPA is not currently aware of
any planned or potential new or reconstructed bonded RS or FA lines.
On July 29, 2015, we published the final rule amendments to the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP resulting from our completion of
certain aspects of the CAA section 112(f)(2) residual risk review and
the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review for that NESHAP RTR. 80 FR
45280. Specifically, the July 29, 2015, final rule:
Established a chromium emission limit for gas-fired,
glass-melting furnaces under CAA section 112(f)(2);
Revised the particulate matter emission limit for gas-
fired, glass-
[[Page 60876]]
melting furnaces at major sources under CAA section 112(d)(6);
Established work practice standards for hydrogen chloride
and hydrogen fluoride emissions from glass-melting furnaces at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(h);
Eliminated the use of formaldehyde as a surrogate and
established revised limits for formaldehyde and first-time limits for
methanol and phenol emitted from FA lines under CAA sections 112(d)(2)
and (d)(3);
Eliminated FA line subcategories;
Removed the exemption for startup and shutdown periods and
established work practice standards that apply during startup and
shutdown periods; and
Established chromium emission limits for both new and
existing gas-fired, glass-melting furnaces at area sources in the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category under CAA section 112(d)(5).
In the July 2015 rule, we did not finalize proposed emission limits
for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions from forming, cooling,
and collection processes on bonded RS lines under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3). We explained that this decision was based on
comments we received on our various proposals indicating that the
proposed limits likely relied on incorrect data. We explained that we
had issued an Information Collection Request (ICR) under CAA section
114 for purposes of obtaining the requisite data. 80 FR 45293.
C. What changes did we propose for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category in our August 29, 2017, notice?
On August 29, 2017, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart NNN, that took into consideration the new data
received in response to the ICR. We also explained that since our July
29, 2015, final rule, we had received new information and data from a
facility that operates FA lines that cast doubts on information and
data that the agency relied on in promulgating the July 2015 final rule
emission limits for FA lines. In the August 29, 2017, Federal Register,
we proposed the following:
Readopting the formaldehyde emission limits for bonded RS
lines that were in the original 1999 NESHAP under CAA section
112(d)(6);
Establishing new emission limits for methanol from bonded
RS lines under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3);
Establishing work practice standards for phenol from
bonded RS lines under CAA section 112(h);
Amending the incinerator operating limits to include
cooling emissions from both RS and FA limits under CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3);
Establishing new subcategories of FA lines under CAA
section 112(d)(1), defined as: (1) Aerospace, Air Filtration, and Pipe
Products; (2) Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC); and
(3) Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM);
Establishing new emission limits for formaldehyde,
methanol, and phenol from most of the newly proposed FA line
subcategories under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3); and
Setting work practice standards for phenol from one newly
proposed FA line subcategory under CAA section 112(h).
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations, as proposed,
pursuant to the CAA section 112(d)(6) review for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category and amends the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP based on those determinations. This action also
finalizes, with minor revisions to our proposals, other changes to the
NESHAP, including establishing first-time limits for methanol emissions
from forming, cooling, and collection processes on new and existing
bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities under CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and establishing work practices standards
for phenol emissions from forming, cooling, and collection processes on
new and existing bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities under CAA section 112(h).
Additionally, consistent with our proposal, this action finalizes
our decision to create three subcategories of FA lines at wool
fiberglass manufactuirng facilities based on the type of product that
is manufactured. This action also finalizes, as proposed, emission
limits for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions under CAA
section 112(d)(2) and (3) for two of these subcategories, and finalizes
emission limits for formaldehyde and methanol under CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3), and work practices standards for phenol emissions
under CAA section 112(h), for the third subcategory.
A. What are the final rule amendments for formaldehyde emissions from
RS lines based on the technology review for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category?
We are readopting the current emissions standards for formaldehyde
from forming, cooling, and collection processes on existing, new, and
reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities under CAA section 112(d)(6) as the result of our technology
review.
B. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
source category?
Under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), we are establishing
emission limits for methanol from forming, cooling, and collection
processes on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities.
C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(h)
for RS lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
We are establishing work practice standards for phenol emissions
from combined fiber/collection, curing, and cooling processes on
existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities under CAA section 112(h).
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
Other changes to the NESHAP include:
Finalizing the proposed subcategories for FA lines and
their associated emissions standards for existing, new, and
reconstructed bonded FA lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities;
Adding an annual operating requirement for designating the
appropriate subcategory for FA lines;
Clarifying that the Aerospace subcategory includes pipe
products;
Establishing the compliance period for both RS and FA
lines; and
Revising the recordkeeping requirement for free-
formaldehyde and free-phenol content of binders.
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on December 26, 2017. The compliance date for
existing RS and FA manufacturing lines is December 26, 2020. New
sources must comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the
effective date of the standard,
[[Page 60877]]
December 26, 2017, or upon startup, whichever is later.
CAA section 112(i)(3) requires that existing sources must comply as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 3 years after
promulgation of standards under CAA section 112(d). (``Section
112(i)(3)'s three-year maximum compliance period applies generally to
any emissions standard . . . promulgated under CAA [section 112].''
Ass'n of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (DC Cir. 2013)).
Additionally, we may not reset compliance deadlines for revisions that
are unaccompanied by changes to a MACT standard. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d
1364, 1374 (DC Cir. 2007) (EPA may not revise compliance deadlines
``for compliance with Section 112 standards anytime it adjusts
reporting terms.''). This final action reflects our conclusion that
sources will need the 3-year period to comply with the various final
rule requirements, which are not just reporting requirements. For
instance, with regard to FA lines, subcategories have been newly
created, and numerical emission limits for formaldehyde and methanol
emissions are being promulgated. Thus, owners or operators of affected
sources will need to conduct performance tests in order to demonstrate
initial compliance with these final standards. Additionally, as
explained at proposal, the work practice standards for phenol emisisons
from both RS and FA lines call for vendor specifications, which will
likely require vendor bids and selections, and the likely institution
of new practices to address the final recordkeeping requirements.
F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
As we proposed, the EPA is taking steps to increase the ease and
efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the
EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners or operators of wool
fiberglass manufacturing facilities to submit electronic copies of
certain required performance test reports.
Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an
electronic performance test report tool called the Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT). The ERT will generate an electronic report package which
will be submitted to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX). A description of the ERT and instructions for using ERT can be
found at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. CEDRI can be
accessed through the CDX website (http://www.epa.gov/cdx). Once
submitted, a performance test report will be available to the public
through the EPA WebFIRE database (https://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/).
The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT website. With electronic
reporting, industry will save time in the performance test submittal
process. Additionally, this rulemaking benefits industry by reducing
recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are submitted
to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be kept in hard copy.
State, local, and tribal air agencies may benefit from more
streamlined and accurate review of performance test data that will
become available to the public through WebFIRE. Having such data
publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. For a more
thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance tests using
direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using EPA-provided
software, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal.
In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development, and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data will save industry, state, local, and tribal air agencies,
and the EPA significant time, money, and effort.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses are contained in the comment summary
and response document available in the docket for this action.
A. Technology Review for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source
Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40970), we proposed
readopting the current NESHAP emission limits for formaldehyde from
forming, cooling, and collection processes on existing, new, and
reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities under CAA section 112(d)(6).
2. How did the technology review change for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category?
We are not changing our technology review findings from the August
29, 2017, proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
One commenter disagreed with our proposal to readopt the current
formaldehyde emission limits for existing and new sources. The
commenter stated that the EPA's refusal to increase protections against
formaldehyde emissions from RS lines is unlawful and irrational and is
not consistent with 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6), which is intended to drive
pollution reductions. The commenter said that the EPA's proposal to
retain the current NESHAP emission limits for formaldehyde from RS
lines, even though the EPA identified developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies under the technology review, does
not meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6) which requires the
EPA to ``account'' for such developments consistent with the CAA. The
commenter asserted that failing to strengthen the emission limits will
allow sources to emit at higher levels without consequence, and will
remove a strong incentive for the industry to complete the transition
to non-phenol formaldehyde (PF) binders.
We disagree with the commenter. As explained in the August 29,
2017, action (82 FR 40975), we considered mandating the use of non-PF
binders for lines currently using PF binders, and/or mandating the use
of non-PF binders for all bonded lines as part of the required CAA
section 112(d)(6) technology review. We did not propose this option,
however, and, instead, we proposed to readopt the current limits
because the source category has already achieved approximately 95-
percent reduction in formaldehyde emissions due to the
[[Page 60878]]
replacement of the PF binders with non-PF binders. We explained that
this industry trend would likely continue given industry indications
that non-PF binders are less expensive than PF binders and, as also
explained at proposal, that cost considerations will move the industry
in the direction of complete elimination of PF binders in the absence
of regulation. However, as also noted at proposal, the remaining
sources that continue to operate RS lines using PF binders manufacture
products for customers with specifications that preclude the use of any
currently available non-PF binders and, therefore, if PF binders were
banned, these facilities would likely no longer be able to produce
these products. Furthermore, we noted that mandating non-PF binders
would likely be viewed as penalizing sources that continued to utilize
PF binders. Therefore, we continue to conclude that it would be
inappropriate to ban PF binders at this time. We also explained that
our review of the 2015 ICR indicated that all bonded RS lines are
equipped with air pollution control devices for formaldehyde emissions
as compared to the time of promulgation of the 1999 MACT standards.
Specifically, we found that formaldehyde emissions were significantly
below the 1999 MACT and we attributed these reductions to both control
technologies in use and the phase out of PF binders. We expressed our
belief that sources would maintain these control technologies and,
thus, that the lower emissions remain somewhat assured, even without
our lowering of the existing MACT standards. We continue to believe
that sources will maintain control technologies that address
formaldehyde emissions from the various processes on RS lines post
promulgation of standards that they are already meeting, partly because
most (or potentially all) of these sources would likely not be able to
comply with the current formaldehyde limits or the new methanol limits
without these controls. We also note that because we were confident of
the continued use of existing control technologies that achieve
formaldehyde emissions reductions that are well below the existing
MACT, we also did not propose requiring initial compliance
demonstration, but rather proposed to allow sources to use test reports
submitted in response to the 2015 ICR as a means of demonstrating
initial compliance with the proposed emission limits, when finalized
(82 FR 40976). This final rule contains this requirement, as proposed.
Additionally, these existing MACT limits are reflected in operating
permits for these sources and, thus, remain enforceable until otherwise
revised.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
As noted in the proposal preamble (82 FR 40974), this source
category has already achieved approximately 95-percent reduction in
formaldehyde emissions due to the replacement of PF binders with non-PF
binders. We conclude that the industry will continue this trend without
the need for tighter regulation due to cost considerations (i.e., non-
PF binders are less expensive than PF binders). Additionally, as
explained above, facilities are currently using PF binders because of
customers' specifications for certain products and, thus, would be
unable to manufacture such products if we mandate the use of non-PF
binders. Therefore, we are finalizing our proposal to readopt the
current NESHAP formaldehyde emission limits for existing, new, and
reconstructed bonded RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities.
B. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for
the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40970), we proposed first-
time standards for methanol emitted from forming, cooling, and
collection processes on existing, new, and reconstructed bonded RS
lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities. We established the
MACT floor for methanol emissions based on application of the upper
prediction limit (UPL) method to the best-performing five sources in
the test data collected under Part 2 of the 2015 ICR. We considered
beyond-the-floor options for methanol for all combined collection and
curing operation designs as required by CAA section 112(d)(2); however,
we did not propose any limits based on the beyond-the-floor analyses
because of the potential adverse impacts of additional controls,
including the cost of control devices, non-air environmental impacts,
and energy implications associated with use of these additional
controls.
2. How did our findings pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3)
review change for the Wool Fberglass Manufacturing source category?
In this final action, we are revising the methanol emission limits
for new and existing bonded RS lines by reflecting just two significant
figures, based on comments received on the August 29, 2017, proposal.
This is consistent with current bonded RS line emission limits.
3. What key comments did we receive on our findings pursuant to CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3), and what are our responses?
One commenter stated that the EPA's proposal illegally and
arbitrarily relied on the UPL, instead of following the CAA's
requirement to set an emission limitation that is not less stringent
than the ``average emission limitation achieved'' by the relevant best-
performing sources. The commenter also argued that there was ample
support in the record for proposal and adoption of beyond-the-floor
limits such as material switching.
We disagree with the commenter. Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA
requires the EPA to promulgate standards for major sources of HAP that
are based on MACT performance. For existing sources, MACT standards
must be at least as stringent as the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (for
which the Administrator has emissions information) or the best-
performing five sources for source categories with less than 30
sources. For new sources, the MACT standards must be at least as
stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. MACT standards also have to be continuously
achievable as specified by CAA section 302(k).
Although CAA section 112(d) includes language such as ``existing
source,'' ``best performing,'' and ``achieved in practice'' in
referring to source operations, the CAA language does not address
whether sources' emission levels should be evaluated over time or be
based on a single test result. In fact, the D.C. Circuit has long
recognized the ambiguity in the term ``average emission limitation.''
See NACWA v. EPA, 734 F.3d at 1131 (noting that the court has accorded
Chevron deference to the EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 129 MACT
floor requirement) and 112 (``the phrase `average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units' could be
interpreted several different ways, with several
[[Page 60879]]
different variations of what the MACT floor is supposed to
represent''). The phrase ``average emission limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of units'' does not specify the methodology
that the EPA should use to determine the emissions levels achieved by
the best-performing sources. Therefore, the EPA has discretion to
interpret the phrase ``average emission limitation achieved'' by the
best performing source or sources. Further, the D.C. Circuit has held
repeatedly that the EPA may take the variability of best-performing
sources into account in establishing MACT floors. Sierra Club v. EPA,
479 F.3d 875, 881-882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). See also, Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d 861, 865 (D.C. Cir. 2001); National Lime
Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 n.46, 443 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Consequently, we apply the UPL approach in developing numeric emission
standards when using short-term test data, rather than calculating a
straight average of test runs which does not address the performance of
a source over time. The UPL is a statistical method to compensate for
limited data and account for variability in emissions in determining
what emission limitations have been achieved by the best-performing
sources. The EPA's use of the UPL has been upheld based on explanations
previously provided in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 632-637
(D.C. Cir. 2016). ``We believe that the EPA has carried its burden of
demonstrating that the UPL reflect[s] a reasonable estimate of the
emissions achieved in practice by the best performing sources.'' Id.,
at 635 (Internal citations omitted).
With regard to the comment that we should have set beyond-the-floor
limits in light of evidence of material switching, as explained at
proposal, there are potential adverse impacts of additional controls
for methanol, such as control devices costs, non-air quality health
impacts, and energy implications (82 FR 40976). Additionally, as also
previously explained, customer specifications preclude the use of
products with any currently available non-PF binders and, therefore,
requiring non-PF binders as a beyond-the-floor measure would result in
these products likely no longer being produced. (``Nothing in section
7429(a)(2) requires the agency to impose a cost so disproportionate to
the expected gains.'' Id., at 640).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach pursuant to CAA
sections 112(d)(2) and (3)?
We based the final methanol emission limits for the forming,
cooling, and collection processes on existing, new, and reconstructed
RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities on data collected
under Part 2 of the 2015 ICR. We conclude that, based on the UPL for
the best-performing five sources, these limits represent the MACT level
of control for methanol emissions currently being achieved on RS line
processes by using add-on control devices (e.g., gas scrubbers, thermal
oxidizers). In response to the proposed rule, we did not receive any
additional emissions and process data for consideration.
C. Amendments Pursuant to CAA Section 112(h) for the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA sections 112(h) for the Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40970), we proposed
establishing work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) that
represent MACT for phenol emissions from forming, cooling, and
collection processes on bonded RS lines. We concluded that it was not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission limit for these processes
due to the prevalence of emission test values reported as below the
detection limit (BDL) of the test method.
2. How did our findings pursuant to CAA section 112(h) change for the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
We did not change our proposal to establish work practice standards
for phenol emissions under CAA section 112(h) for RS lines. However,
based on our evaluation of public comments, we concluded that methods
for determining the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of binder
formulations does not exist. We have, therefore, removed the proposed
requirement for facilities to record the free-formaldehyde and free-
phenol content of binder formulations, and instead revised the proposed
requirement for facilities to record and maintain records of the free-
formaldehyde and free-phenol content of the resin purchased. In
addition, facilities are required to record and maintain records of the
formaldehyde and phenol content of the product binder formulations.
3. What key comments did we receive on our findings pursuant to CAA
section 112(h), and what are our responses?
One commenter noted that the proposed rule requires owners or
operators to record the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of
binder, but did not specify the method for determining these values.
The proposed rule did not specify the procedures for determining the
binder free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content because we were
unaware of a published method for conducting the measurement. Based on
discussions with the commenter, the industry does not have methods for
assessing these parameters in binder formulations. Consequently, we are
removing the requirement in the final rule to record the free-
formaldehyde and free-phenol content of binder formulations. We have
revised the rule to require facilities to record and maintain records
of the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol content of the resin
purchased.
One commenter said that the EPA failed to meet the required tests
for setting only work practice standards instead of numerical emission
limits. The commenter noted that the EPA may promulgate work practice
standards instead of numerical standards ``only if measuring emission
levels is technologically or economically impracticable'' (Sierra Club
v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883-84 (D.C. Cir. 2007)) and only if doing so
``is consistent with the provisions of subsection (d) or (f).'' 42
U.S.C. 7412(h)(1). The commenter stated that the presence of BDL values
in the test data does not provide an excuse for the EPA to evade the
requirement to set numeric standards.
We disagree with the commenter that numerical standards are
appropriate for phenol emissions from RS lines. Sections 112(h)(1) and
(h)(2)(B) of the CAA provide the EPA with the discretion to adopt a
work practice standard, rather than a numeric standard, when ``the
application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources
is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.'' The
``application of measurement methodologies'' (described in CAA section
112(h)(2)(B)) means not only conducting a measurement, but also that a
measurement has some reasonable relation to what the source is emitting
(i.e., that the measurement yields a meaningful value). That is not the
case here. Therefore, as proposed, we concluded that it is not feasible
to establish a numerical standard for phenol emissions from RS lines.
Moreover, a numerical limit established at some level greater than the
detection limit (which would be a necessity since any numeric standard
would have to be measurable) could authorize and allow more emissions
of these HAP than would otherwise be the case.
[[Page 60880]]
4. What is the rationale for our final approach pursuant to CAA section
112(h)?
As explained in the proposal preamble, approximately 60 percent of
the phenol concentration values were reported as BDL values. Under
these circumstances, it is not technologically and economically
feasible to measure reliably phenol emissions from RS lines. This is
also consistent with our approach in previous rulemakings (e.g., NESHAP
for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, NESHAP
for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants) where test results were
predominantly found to be BDL (e.g., more than 55 percent of the test
run results). In these instances, the EPA established work practice
standards for the pollutants in question from the subject sources
because we concluded that emissions of the pollutants are too low to
reliably measure and quantify. Similarly, we are finalizing work
practice standards for phenol emissions from FA lines.
D. Amendments for FA Lines in the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Source
Category
1. What amendments did we propose for FA lines in the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing source category?
In the August 29, 2017, action (82 FR 40976), we proposed three
subcategories for FA lines under CAA section 112(d)(1) based on recent
information indicating that there are technical or design differences
that distinguish FA lines that manufacture different wool fiberglass
products: (1) Aerospace and Air Filtration; (2) HVAC; and (3) OEM. (See
also proposed 40 CFR 63.1381.) We also proposed revisions to the
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emission limits for FA lines
promulgated on July 29, 2015 (80 FR 45280), to reflect these new
subcategories and proposed a 1-year compliance period. In a separate
action on July 6, 2017 (82 FR 34858), we proposed extending the
compliance period for the July 29, 2015, final rule requirements for
existing FA lines to 3 years in order to allow the EPA time to review
corrected data provided by the industry.
2. How did our findings regarding the FA line proposal change for the
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing source category?
Consistent with our August 29, 2017, proposal, we revised the
formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol limits for FA lines to incorporate
updated production data received from the industry. We also revised the
definition of the Aerospace subcategory to include FA lines that
manufacture pipe products to reflect comments we received on our
proposal. Table 2 shows the final emission limits for the FA line
subcategories.
Table 2--Final Emission Limits for FA Line Subcategories
[lb/ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and
Subcategory Pollutant Existing reconstructed
sources sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace, Air Filtration, and Pipe Formaldehyde....................... 27 18.0
Products.
Methanol........................... 8.9 4.0
HVAC....................................... Formaldehyde....................... 2.8 2.4
Methanol........................... 7.3 1.5
Phenol............................. 0.4 0.4
OEM........................................ Formaldehyde....................... 5.0 2.9
Methanol........................... 5.7 1.1
Phenol............................. 31 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What key comments did we receive regarding the FA line proposal?
One commenter noted that we did not use the correct production rate
values in calculating the test run values (expressed in terms of pounds
of pollutant per ton of glass pulled) that we used in the UPL analysis.
We acknowledge the error in the industry data, and the emission limits
for FA lines in the final rule, reflects the updated production values.
One commenter noted that the Aerospace and Air Filtration Products
subcategory should include pipe products because the same base resin is
used in manufacturing these products. We agree with the commenter that
it is appropriate for pipe products and the Aerospace and Air
Filtration Products subcategory to meet the same emission limits;
therefore, we revised the Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN in the
final rule.
Another commenter stated that the EPA's proposal to subcategorize
FA lines so that each individual source is its own subcategory is
irrational and unlawful and does not meet the statutory test for
subcategorization specified in CAA section 112(d)(1), which is based on
the ``classes, types, and sizes'' of sources. The commenter said that
the EPA failed to provide the necessary determination to subcategorize,
including a demonstration of: (1) Why these different products make the
different lines somehow appropriate to divide into subcategories; (2)
why the different products require the use of different binders, some
with greater amounts of pollutants; or (3) why the EPA is changing its
prior proposal not to subcategorize FA lines. The commenter also stated
that there was no support for the work practice standard for phenol
emissions from the Aerospace, Air Filtration, and Pipe Products
subcategory.
We disagree with the commenter. In the April 15, 2013, proposal (78
FR 22387), we proposed to eliminate the heavy density and pipe
subcategories of FA manufacturing lines because we no longer believe
that a technical basis exists to distinguish these subcategories, and,
in the July 29, 2015, action, we finalized emission limits for FA lines
that apply to all types of products. However, as noted in the August
29, 2017, proposal (82 FR 40977), the data (that we used to determine
that FA line emission limits) contained errors in the analytical
results for formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol. In fact, the data used
to set the 2015 emission limits did not represent every product
manufactured by the source category. Our review of the corrected FA
line data received from the industry identified that the phenol
emission from certain FA production lines were 1- to 2-orders of
magnitude higher than other FA lines. In addition, we found that some
FA lines, due to their lower pull rates, were never represented in the
data used to set the 2015 emission limits for FA
[[Page 60881]]
lines. Based on discussions with Johns Manville (the only company
currently operating FA lines), we were able to attribute the
differences in phenol emissions to the use of different binder
formulations in the manufacture of different wool fiberglass products
for specific customer demands and end uses. We had also explained that
PF binder application varies with the result that phenol emissions are
either higher or lower depending on the product being manufactured (82
FR 40977). Additionally, proposed 40 CFR 63.1381 presented the proposed
subcategories. Based on our proposal, we conclude that the different
products manufactured, and their represented manufacturing processes
are an acceptable basis that Congress intended for distinguishing
between classes or types of sources. We also note that ``type'' is
``undefined and unrestricted'' in CAA section 112(d)(1). U.S. Sugar
Corp., 830 F.3d at 656.
One commenter noted that the final rule should include criteria for
designating the appropriate subcategory for individual FA lines and
suggested that the subcategory be assigned based on the type of product
manufactured for 75 percent of the FA line's operating hours. We agree
with the commenter. Therefore, we have revised the subcategory
definitions in the final rule to include the percent-operating time
criteria.
One commenter objected to the EPA's proposal to extend the
compliance date for FA lines because the EPA's action violates: (1) The
clear compliance deadline requirements for air toxics standards
provided in 40 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3); (2) the prohibition on a delay of
effectiveness of more than 3 months for the purpose of reconsideration
according to 40 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B); and (3) the core public notice-
and-comment requirements of the CAA and reasoned decision-making
because the EPA did not provide any information, data, or documents
related to the erroneous data in the public docket. The commenter also
asserted that the EPA's proposed action is arbitrary and capricious
because it is unsupported by evidence in the record and it conflicts
with evidence in the record. The commenter argued that the EPA is
changing its prior determination of the 2-year compliance date without
the required acknowledgment and a reasoned explanation, including a
justification for disregarding the facts previously found. The
commenter also said EPA has given no indication that the concern it
raised applies to more than one facility or a sufficient number of
facilities to justify considering a new compliance date for all
sources, as opposed to evaluating a request for a single compliance
date extension of 1 year under the statutory mechanism for that
purpose. In addition, the EPA has failed to consider or address in any
way the health and environmental effects of the compliance delay it
proposes.
We disagree with the commenter. The direct final action did not
stay the effectiveness of the July 29, 2015, final rule but rather
extended the compliance date for FA lines by one year. (82 FR 34858).
Moreover, because the EPA received adverse comments, the direct final
notice was subsequently withdrawn and did not go into effect.
Additionally, in a separate action, of August 29, 2017, the EPA
proposed a different approach that was based on new data and
information provided by Johns Manville, which can be found in the
docket for this rulemaking. In this document, the EPA is taking action
to finalize the approach presented in the August 29, 2017, that
includes the creation of subscategories for FA lines. As such,
assertions that the approach presented in the direct final and parallel
proposal were insufficiently supported by the record are not relevant
to this action. The final action is consistent with the statutory
mandate and fully supported by the rulemaking record. As previously
explained, CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) specifies that the compliance date
for existing sources must provide for compliance as expeditiously as
practicable, no later than 3 years after the effective date of the
standard. The compliance deadline in this final rule does not exceed
the 3-year period allowed under CAA section 112(i)(3)(A). As also
previously explained, it reflects the period the EPA believes sources
need to comply with these revised standards and conduct the necessary
compliance tests (refer to section III.E of this action).
We also disagree that the 3-month period for staying the
effectiveness of a rule is relevant. The compliance extension contained
within this action does not stay the effectiveness of a rule by
altering the effective date. Instead, it simply extends the compliance
date--an action which has its own effective date. Moreover, the CAA
requirements at 40 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B) specify the conditions for
submitting and the requirements for responding to a petition for
reconsideration. As we explained in the July 2017 action, we extended
the compliance date on our own initiative because we discovered that
the data on which the July 2015 final rule was based contained errors.
We were not proceeding in response to a petition for reconsideration of
the rule.
As previously discussed regarding the response to comments on our
proposed work practice standards for phenol emissions from RS lines, in
section IV.C of this preamble, we disagree with the commenter that
numerical standards are appropriate for phenol emissions from FA lines.
For the reasons provided in section IV.C, we conclude that it is not
feasible to establish a numerical standard for phenol emissions from FA
lines manufacturing aerospace, air filtration, and pipe products.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for FA lines?
Based on the corrected phenol emissions data and the different
binder formulations used, we conclude it is appropriate to establish
the Aerospace, HVAC, and OEM subcategories and their associated
emission standards for FA lines in this final rule. We are providing a
period of 3 years to allow owners and operators of FA lines sufficient
time to plan and conduct compliance tests, submit notifications and
compliance status reports, and to evaluate current control technology
conditions, if needed.
E. Other Amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP
1. What other amendments did we propose to the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP?
In the August 29, 2017, action we proposed amendments to the
incinerator operating limits specified in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(6) to
clearly indicate that the subsection applies to total RS or FA line
emissions. In addition, we proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.1383(g)(1)
to include this clarification as it relates to monitoring requirements.
In the August 29, 2017, proposed rule, we revised 40 CFR
63.1382(c)(8)(i) to include corrective action requirements as they
apply to the new RS line emission limits, and the revised FA line
emission limits. Similarly, we proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.1383(h)
to reflect monitoring requirements applicable to the new RS line
emission limits, and the revised FA line emission limits. In addition,
we revised 40 CFR 63.1383(i)(1) to address owner or operators who use
process modifications to control both formaldehyde and methanol
emissions.
The August 29, 2017, proposed rule included clarification for
performance test requirements, as included in 40 CFR 63.1384(a)(3), and
revised 40 CFR 63.1384(a)(9) to require the requirement to monitor and
record the free-phenol content of the binder formulation.
[[Page 60882]]
Lastly, we proposed to allow owners or operators that conducted
emissions tests in 2016 in response to the EPA's ICR to submit those
performance test results to demonstrate initial compliance with the new
methanol emission limits for RS lines, rather than conducting
additional tests.
2. How did our findings change for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
NESHAP?
Based on comments received, we reiterate in this final action that
the incinerator operating limits of 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(6) apply to total
emissions from forming, cooling, and collection for RS lines and to
total emissions from forming, cooling, and collection for FA lines.
3. What key comments did we receive regarding the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP in general?
One commenter noted that in the August 29, 2017, proposed rule
preamble the EPA stated that ``We are also proposing amendments to the
incinerator operating limits specified in 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(6) to
clearly indicate that the subsection applies to cooling emissions.
Incinerators would be required to control the final formaldehyde,
methanol, and, where applicable, phenol emissions from forming, curing,
and cooling processes for both FA and bonded RS lines.'' 82 FR 40976.
The commenter suggested that the EPA should make clear that an owner or
operator must meet the incinerator requirements in the event the
cooling section on a particular line uses incineration as a means of
control. The commenter indicated that the rule text revision was
acceptable, but the preamble language was contradictory.
We have finalized 40 CFR 63.1382(c)(g) as proposed, but have
provided clarification in this preamble to indicate that the
incinerator operating limit applies to the total emissions from the
production line, and does not apply to individual incinerators used for
each of the processes within the production line.
As noted in section IV.C.2 of this preamble, one commenter noted
that the proposed rule requires owners or operators to record the free-
phenol content of binder, but did not specify the method for
determining free-phenol content of the binders. Based on discussions
with the commenter, the industry does not have a method for assessing
this parameter in binder formulations. We have, therefore, revised 40
CFR 63.1384(a)(9) to require facilities to record and maintain records
of the free-phenol content of the resin purchased. In addition, the
facilities are required to maintain records of the formaldehyde and
phenol content of the binder formulations used in the products.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the additional
amendments to the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP?
We have revised the requirement for monitoring and recording the
free-phenol content to specify that facilities must monitor and record
the free-phenol content of the resin purchased, and not of the binder
formulation. All other proposed rule revisions are finalized as
proposed. We provide clarification in this preamble the intent of the
incinerator operating limits included in the final rule, and indicate
they are applicable to the RS and FA lines at wool fiberglass
manufacturing facilities.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
Currently, only three wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities
continue to use RS lines to manufacture a bonded product. These three
facilities operate six bonded RS lines that would be affected by the
revised emission limits. Additionally, two facilities continue to use
FA lines to manufacture a bonded product. The EPA is not currently
aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed bonded RS or FA
lines.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
Based on the test data received in response to the 2015 ICR, the
three facilities with bonded RS lines currently meet the final emission
limits for formaldehyde and methanol. Furthermore, based on available
information, we expect the two facilities with bonded FA lines will be
able to meet the emission limits for formaldehyde, methanol and phenol
without additional controls. Therefore, the emission limits for
formaldehyde, methanol and phenol will likley not result in further HAP
emissions reductions. Also, we do not anticipate secondary
environmental impacts from the final amendments to the Wool Fiberglass
Manufacturing NESHAP because we expect that owners or operators will
not need to install additional control devices to meet any of the
standards.
C. What are the cost impacts?
Because the existing facilities will not need to install add-on
control devices or implement process modifications to comply with the
final emissions standards, and because the EPA is allowing facilities
to use the test reports submitted in response to Part 2 of the ICR to
demonstrate initial compliance with the final emission limits for RS
lines, the five facilities that are subject to the final emission
standards will not incur increased costs for installing or upgrading
emissions control systems. However, the facilities that are subject to
this final action will each incur costs related to the testing and
notifications requirements related to emission limits, and additional
monitoring and recordkeeping activities related to work practice
standards. The total annual cost of this final action is approximately
$13,131/year (2016 dollars).
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses evaluate changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
directly affected markets are significant, impacts on other markets are
also examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with the
rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can
have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a
rule.
The final standards for RS lines at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities do not impose control costs or additional testing costs on
affected facilities. However, affected facilities will have reporting
requirements (i.e., an initial notification and a notification of
compliance status) associated with the final formaldehyde and methanol
emission limits and monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
associated with the phenol work practice standard. We estimate that the
total annual cost of this final action is approximately $13,131/year
(2016 dollars). The economic impacts associated with the costs of this
final action are quite low; each affected firm is estimated to
experience an impact of less than 0.01 percent of their revenues.
E. What are the benefits?
Based on the data collected under Part 2 of the ICR, the actual
formaldehyde emissions from all bonded RS lines are lower than the
level allowed under the 1999 NESHAP. Although the final standards for
formaldehyde from RS lines do not achieve further emissions reductions,
the final emission limits for methanol and the work practice standards
for phenol ensure that the emissions reductions that have been achieved
since the 1999 NESHAP will persist into the future and that emissions
will not increase.
[[Page 60883]]
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), and it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard.
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
This final action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 1160.10. This action does not change the information
collection requirements.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. None of the
five entities affected by this action are small entities, using the
Small Business Administration definition of small business for the
affected NAICS code (327993), which is 1,500 employees for the ultimate
parent company.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action readopts the existing emission limit
for formaldehyde and establishes new emission limits for methanol and a
work practice standard for phenol emissions for RS lines. This action
also includes revisions to the standards for FA lines. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Source
NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN)
Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
We also contacted voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and
accessed and searched their databases.
As discussed in the November 2014 supplemental proposal (79 FR
68029), under 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNN, we conducted searches for
EPA Methods 5, 318, 320, 29, and 0061 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A.
These searches did not identify any VCS that were potentially
applicable for this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). It
does not establish an environmental health or safety standard.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wool fiberglass manufacturing.
Dated: December 15, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA is amending title
40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
0
2. Section 63.1381 is amended by adding the definitions, in
alphabetical order, for ``Aerospace and air filtration
[[Page 60884]]
products''; ``Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
products''; and ``Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) products'' and
revising the definition of ``Pipe product'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1381 Definitions.
* * * * *
Aerospace and air filtration products means bonded wool fiberglass
insulation manufactured for the thermal and acoustical insulation of
aircraft and/or the air filtration markets. For the purposes of this
subpart, a production line that manufactures these types of products
for 75 percent or more of the line's annual operating hours is
considered to be an aerospace and air filtration products line.
* * * * *
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) products means
bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured for use in HVAC systems
for the distribution of air or for thermal and acoustical insulation of
HVAC distribution lines. For the purposes of this subpart, a production
line that manufactures these types of products for 75 percent or more
of the line's annual operating hours is considered to be an HVAC
products line.
* * * * *
Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) products means bonded wool
fiberglass insulation manufactured for OEM entities that fabricate the
insulation into parts used as thermal or acoustical insulation in
products including, but not limited to, appliances, refrigeration
units, and office interior equipment. For the purposes of this subpart,
a production line that manufactures these types of products for 75
percent or more of the line's annual operating hours is considered to
be an OEM products line.
Pipe product means bonded wool fiberglass insulation manufactured
on a flame attenuation manufacturing line and having a loss on ignition
of 8 to 14 percent and a density of 48 to 96 kg/m\3\ (3 to 6 lb/ft\3\).
For the purposes of this subpart, a production line that manufactures
these types of products for 75 percent or more of the line's annual
operating hours is considered to be a pipe product line.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.1382 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(6), (c)(8)(i),
and (c)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1382 Emission standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) The owner or operator must operate each incinerator used to
comply with the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation
lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart such that any 3-hour block
average temperature in the firebox does not fall below the average
established during the performance test as specified in Sec. 63.1384.
* * * * *
(8)(i) The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within
1 hour when the monitored process parameter level(s) is outside the
limit(s) established during the performance test as specified in Sec.
63.1384 for the process modification(s) used to comply with the
emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines specified in
Table 2 to this subpart, and complete corrective actions in a timely
manner according to the procedures in the operations, maintenance, and
monitoring plan.
* * * * *
(9) The owner or operator must use a resin in the formulation of
binder such that the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of the
resin used do not exceed the respective ranges contained in the
specification for the resin used during the performance test as
specified in Sec. 63.1384.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.1383 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1), (h),
(i)(1), and (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1383 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(g)(1) The owner or operator who uses an incinerator to comply with
the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation lines
specified in Table 2 to this subpart must install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures and records
the operating temperature in the firebox of each incinerator.
* * * * *
(h) The owner or operator who uses a wet scrubbing control device
to comply with the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation
lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart must install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate monitoring devices that continuously monitor and
record the gas pressure drop across each scrubber and the scrubbing
liquid flow rate to each scrubber according to the procedures in the
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The pressure drop monitor
must be certified by its manufacturer to be accurate within 250 pascals (1 inch water gauge) over its operating
range, and the flow rate monitor must be certified by its manufacturer
to be accurate within 5 percent over its operating range.
The owner or operator must also continuously monitor and record the
feed rate of any chemical(s) added to the scrubbing liquid.
(i)(1) The owner or operator who uses process modifications to
comply with the emission limits for rotary spin or flame attenuation
lines specified in Table 2 to this subpart must establish a correlation
between formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol emissions, as appropriate,
and the process parameter(s) to be monitored.
* * * * *
(j) The owner or operator must monitor and record the free-
formaldehyde and free-phenol content of each resin shipment received
and of each resin used in the formulation of binder.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.1384 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (a)(3), (a)(9), and (c) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1384 Performance test requirements.
(a) The owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. Compliance is demonstrated
when the emission rate of the pollutant is equal to or less than each
of the applicable emission limits in Sec. 63.1382. The owner or
operator shall conduct the performance test according to the procedures
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and in this section. If the owner or
operator conducted an emissions test in 2016 according to the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.1384(a)(9) and Sec. 63.1385 in
response to the EPA's Information Collection Request, the owner or
operator can use the results of the emissions test to demonstrate
initial compliance with the emission limits for rotary spin lines
specified in Table 2 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(3) During each performance test, the owner or operator must
monitor and record the glass pull rate for each glass-melting furnace
and, if different, the glass pull rate for each rotary spin
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line. Record the
glass pull rate every 15 minutes during any performance test required
by this subpart and determine the arithmetic average of the recorded
measurements for each test run and calculate the average of the three
test runs. If a rotary spin or flame attenuation line shares one or
more emissions points with another rotary spin or flame attenuation
line(s), owners or operators can conduct the
[[Page 60885]]
performance test while each of the process lines with the shared
emissions point(s) is operating as specified in paragraph (a)(8) of
this section, rather than testing each of the shared lines separately.
In these cases, owners or operators must use the combined glass pull
rate for the process lines with the shared emissions point(s) to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits specified in Table 2 to
this subpart.
* * * * *
(9) The owner or operator of each rotary spin manufacturing line
and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated by this subpart must
conduct performance tests using the resin with the highest free-
formaldehyde content. During the performance test of each rotary spin
manufacturing line and flame attenuation manufacturing line regulated
by this subpart, the owner or operator shall monitor and record the
free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of the resin, the binder
formulation used, and the product LOI and density.
* * * * *
(c) To determine compliance with the emission limits specified in
Table 2 to this subpart, for formaldehyde and methanol for rotary spin
manufacturing lines; formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol for flame
attenuation manufacturing lines; and chromium compounds for gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces, use the following equation:
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.1385 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1385 Test methods and procedures
(a) * * *
(8) Method contained in appendix B of this subpart for the
determination of the free-formaldehyde content of resin. The owner or
operator shall use vendor specifications to determine the free-phenol
content of resin.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.1386 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2)(v) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1386 Notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) The formulation of each binder batch and the LOI and density
for each product manufactured on a rotary spin manufacturing line or
flame attenuation manufacturing line subject to the provisions of this
subpart, and the free-formaldehyde and free-phenol contents of each
resin shipment received and of each resin used in the binder
formulation;
* * * * *
0
8. Table 2 to subpart NNN of part 63 is amended by:
0
a. Revising entries 7 and 8;
0
b. Redesignating entries 9 through 13 as entries 11 through 15;
0
c. Adding new entries 9 and 10;
0
d. Revising newly redesignated entries 11 through 15;
0
e. Adding entries 16 through 19; and
0
f. Adding footnote 5.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart NNN of Part 63--Emission Limits and Compliance Dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you commenced Your emission limits
If your source is a: construction: are: \1\ And you must comply by: \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
7. Rotary spin manufacturing line On or before March 1.2 lb formaldehyde June 14, 2002.
31, 1997. per ton of glass
pulled \5\.
8. Rotary spin manufacturing line After March 31, 1997 0.8 lb formaldehyde June 14, 1999.
per ton of glass
pulled \5\.
9. Rotary spin manufacturing line On or before 1.2 lb formaldehyde December 26, 2020.
November 25, 2011. per ton of glass
pulled 1.1 lb
methanol per ton of
glass pulled.
10. Rotary spin manufacturing After November 25, 0.8 lb formaldehyde December 26, 2017.\4\
line. 2011. per ton of glass
pulled 0.65 lb
methanol per ton of
glass pulled.
11. Flame-attenuation line After March 31, 7.8 lb formaldehyde June 14, 1999.
manufacturing a heavy-density 1997, but on or per ton of glass
product. before November 25, pulled \5\.
2011.
12. Flame-attenuation line On or before March 6.8 lb formaldehyde June 14, 2002.
manufacturing a pipe product. 31, 1997. per ton of glass
pulled \5\.
13. Flame-attenuation line After March 31, 6.8 lb formaldehyde June 14, 1999.
manufacturing a pipe product. 1997, but before per ton of glass
November 25, 2011. pulled \5\.
14. Flame-attenuation line On or before 27 lb formaldehyde December 26, 2020.
manufacturing an aerospace, air November 25, 2011. per ton of glass
filtration, or pipe product. pulled 8.9 lb
methanol per ton of
glass pulled.
15. Flame-attenuation line After November 25, 18.0 lb formaldehyde December 26, 2017.\4\
manufacturing an aerospace, air 2011. per ton of glass
filtration, or pipe product. pulled 4.0 lb
methanol per ton of
glass pulled.
16. Flame-attenuation line On or before 2.8 lb formaldehyde December 26, 2020.
manufacturing an HVAC product. November 25, 2011. per ton of glass
pulled 7.3 lb
methanol per ton of
glass pulled 0.4 lb
phenol per ton of
glass pulled.
17. Flame-attenuation line After November 25, 2.4 lb formaldehyde December 26, 2017.\4\
manufacturing an HVAC product. 2011. per ton of glass
pulled 1.5 lb
methanol per ton of
glass pulled 0.4 lb
phenol per ton of
glass pulled.
[[Page 60886]]
18. Flame-attenuation line On or before 5.0 lb formaldehyde December 26, 2020.
manufacturing an OEM product. November 25, 2011. per ton of glass
pulled 5.7 lb
methanol per ton of
glass pulled 31 lb
phenol per ton of
glass pulled.
19. Flame-attenuation line After November 25, 2.9 lb formaldehyde December 26, 2017.\4\
manufacturing an OEM product. 2011. per ton of glass
pulled 1.1 lb
methanol per ton of
glass pulled 22 lb
phenol per ton of
glass pulled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The numeric limits do not apply during startup and shutdown.
\2\ Existing sources must demonstrate compliance by the compliance dates specified in this table. New sources
have 180 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate compliance.
* * * * * * *
\4\ Or initial startup, whichever is later.
\5\ This limit does not apply after December 26, 2020.
[FR Doc. 2017-27797 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P