Plywood and Composite Wood Products Thursday January by rfj18871

VIEWS: 63 PAGES: 65

									                                                                                           Thursday,
                                                                                           January 9, 2003




                                                                                           Part III

                                                                                           Environmental
                                                                                           Protection Agency
                                                                                           40 CFR 63
                                                                                           National Emission Standards for
                                                                                           Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and
                                                                                           Composite Wood Products; Proposed Rule




VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00001   Fmt 4717   Sfmt 4717   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1276                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                                Air and Radiation Docket and                           confidential business information (CBI)
     AGENCY                                                  Information Center (Mail Code 6102T),                  should be submitted by e-mail.
                                                             Attention Docket Number A–98–44,                       Electronic comments may be filed
     40 CFR Part 63                                          Room B108, U.S. EPA, 1301                              online at many Federal Depository
     [FRL–7419–3]                                            Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,                  Libraries.
                                                             DC 20460. Written comments delivered                      Commenters wishing to submit
     RIN 2060–AG52                                           in person or by courier (e.g., FedEx,                  proprietary information for
                                                             Airborne, and UPS) should be submitted                 consideration must clearly distinguish
     National Emission Standards for                         (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and                 such information from other comments
     Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and                   Radiation Docket and Information                       and clearly label it as CBI. Send
     Composite Wood Products                                 Center (Mail Code 6102T), Attention                    submissions containing such
     AGENCY: Environmental Protection                        Docket Number A–98–44, Room B102,                      proprietary information directly to the
     Agency (EPA).                                           U.S. EPA, 1301 Consitution Avenue,                     following address, and not to the public
     ACTION: Proposed rule.                                  NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA                     docket, to ensure that proprietary
                                                             requests a separate copy also be sent to               information is not inadvertently placed
     SUMMARY: This action proposes national                  the contact person listed below (see FOR               in the docket: Attention: Mary Tom
     emission standards for hazardous air                    FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).                          Kissell, c/o OAQPS Document Control
     pollutants (NESHAP) for the plywood                        Public Hearing. If a public hearing is              Officer (C404–02), U.S. EPA, Research
     and composite wood products (PCWP)                      held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the                Triangle Park NC 27711. The EPA will
     source category. The EPA has                            EPA Office of Administration                           disclose information identified as CBI
     determined that the PCWP source                         Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,                    only the extent allowed by the
     category contains major sources of                      North Carolina.                                        procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     hazardous air pollutants (HAP),                            Docket. Docket No. A–98–44 contains                 If no claim of confidentiality
     including acetaldehyde, acrolein,                       supporting information used in                         accompanies a submission when it is
     formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and                     developing the standards. The docket is                received by the EPA, the information
     propionaldehyde. These HAP are                          located at the U.S. EPA, 1301                          may be made available to the public
     associated with a variety of adverse                    Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,                  without further notice to the
     health effects. These adverse health                    DC 20460 in room B108, and may be                      commenter.
     effects include chronic health disorders                inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,                    Public Hearing. Persons interested in
     (e.g., damage to nasal membranes,                       Monday through Friday, excluding legal                 presenting oral testimony or inquiring
     reproductive disorders, and problems                    holidays.                                              as to whether a hearing is to be held
     with pregnancies) and acute health                                                                             should contact JoLynn Collins, Waste
                                                             FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
     disorders (e.g., irritation of eyes, throat,                                                                   and Chemical Processes Group,
                                                                General and technical information.                  Emissions Standards Division (C439–
     and mucous membranes, dizziness,                        Mary Tom Kissell, Waste and Chemical
     headache, and nausea). Three of the                                                                            03), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
                                                             Processes Group, Emissions Standards                   NC 27711, telephone (919) 541–5671 at
     HAP have been classified as probable or                 Division (C439–03), U.S. EPA, Research
     possible human carcinogens. These                                                                              least 2 days in advance of the public
                                                             Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,                   hearing. Persons interested in attending
     proposed standards would implement                      telephone number (919) 541–4516,
     section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act                                                                            the public hearing must also call JoLynn
                                                             electronic mail (e-mail) address                       Collins to verify the time, date, and
     (CAA) by requiring all major sources                    kissell.mary@epa.gov.
     subject to the rule to meet HAP                                                                                location of the hearing. The public
                                                                Methods, sampling, and monitoring                   hearing will provide interested parties
     emission standards reflecting the                       information. Gary McAlister, Source
     application of the maximum achievable                                                                          the opportunity to present data, views,
                                                             Measurement Analysis Group, Emission                   or arguments concerning these proposed
     control technology (MACT).                              Monitoring and Analysis Division
     Implementation of the proposed                                                                                 emission standards.
                                                             (D243–02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle                    Docket. The docket is an organized
     standards would reduce HAP emissions                    Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone                  and complete file of all the information
     from the PCWP source category by                        number (919) 541–1062, e-mail address                  considered by the EPA in the
     approximately 9,700 megagrams per                       mcalister.gary@epa.gov.                                development of this rulemaking. The
     year (Mg/yr) (11,000 tons per year (tons/                  Economic impacts and benefit                        docket is a dynamic file because
     yr)). In addition, the proposed standards               analysis. Larry Sorrels, Innovative                    material is added throughout the
     would reduce emissions of volatile                      Strategies and Economics Group, Air                    rulemaking process. The docketing
     organic compounds (VOC) by 25,000                       Quality Strategies and Standards                       system is intended to allow members of
     Mg/yr (27,000 tons/yr). This action also                Division (C339–01), U.S. EPA, Research                 the public and industries involved to
     proposes to add a method to the                         Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,                   readily identify and locate documents
     relevant General Provisions to measure                  telephone number (919) 541–5041, e-                    so that they can effectively participate
     methanol, formaldehyde, and phenol                      mail address sorrels.larry@epa.gov.                    in the rulemaking process. Along with
     and a method to measure total HAP at                    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                             the proposed and promulgated
     PCWP facilities.                                        Comments. Comments and data may be                     standards and their preambles, the
     DATES: Comments. Submit comments on                     submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to:              contents of the docket, with certain
     or before March 10, 2003.                               a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic                     exceptions, will serve as the record in
        Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the               comments must be submitted as an                       the case of judicial review. (See section
     EPA requesting to speak at a public                     ASCII file to avoid the use of special                 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory
     hearing by January 29, 2003, a public                   characters and encryption problems and                 text and other materials related to this
     hearing will be held on February 10,                    will also be accepted on disks in                      rulemaking are available for review in
     2003.                                                   WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel                 the docket or copies may be mailed on
     ADDRESSES: Comments. Written                            8 file format. All comments and data                   request from the Air Docket by calling
     comments sent by U.S. mail should be                    submitted in electronic form must note                 (202) 566–1742. A reasonable fee may
     submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:                the docket number: A–98–44. No                         be charged for copying docket materials.


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00002   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                                      Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                          1277

        World Wide Web (WWW). In addition                                         the rule will be posted on the TTN’s                 pollution control. If more information
     to being available in the docket, an                                         policy and guidance page for newly                   regarding the TTN is needed, call the
     electronic copy of today’s proposed rule                                     proposed or promulgated rules http://                TTN HELP line at (919) 541–5384.
     is also available on the WWW through                                         www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN                         Regulated Entities. Categories and
     the Technology Transfer Network                                              provides information and technology                  entities potentially regulated by this
     (TTN). Following signature, a copy of                                        exchange in various areas of air                     action include:

                                   Category                                             SIC           NAICS                           Examples of regulated entities

     Industry .................................................................            2421          321999     Sawmills with lumber kilns.
                                                                                           2435          321211     Hardwood plywood and veneer plants.
                                                                                           2436          321212     Softwood plywood and veneer plants.
                                                                                           2493          321219     Reconstituted wood products (Particleboard, medium density fi-
                                                                                                                      berboard, hardboard, fiberboard, and oriented strandboard
                                                                                                                      plants).
                                                                                           2439          321213     Structural Wood Members, Not Elsewhere Classified (Engi-
                                                                                                                      neered wood products plants).



        This table is not intended to be                                            C. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor                  Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
     exhaustive, but rather provides a guide                                           For Existing Sources?                                (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
     for readers regarding entities likely to be                                    D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor               G. Paperwork Reduction Act
     regulated by this action. To determine                                            For New Sources?                                  H. National Technology Transfer and
                                                                                    E. What Control Options Beyond the                      Advancement Act of 1995
     whether your facility is regulated by this
                                                                                       MACT Floor Did We Consider?                       I. Executive Order 13211, Actions
     action, you should examine the                                                 F. How Did We Select the Format of the                  Concerning Regulations That
     applicability criteria in § 63.2231 of the                                        Proposed Rule?                                       Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
     proposed rule. If you have any questions                                       G. How Did We Select the Test Methods for               Distribution, or Use
     regarding the applicability of this action                                        Determining Compliance With This
     to a particular entity, consult the person                                        Proposed Rule?                                  I. Introduction
     listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER                                            H. How Did We Select the Monitoring and
     INFORMATION CONTACT section.                                                      Recordkeeping Requirements?                     A. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed
                                                                                    I. How Did We Select the Notification and          Rule?
        Outline. The information presented in                                          Reporting Requirements?
     this preamble is organized as follows:                                       IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and               The purpose of the proposed rule is
     I. Introduction                                                                   Economic Impacts                                to protect the public health by reducing
        A. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed                                     A. How Many Facilities Are Impacted by             emissions of HAP from PCWP facilities.
           Rule?                                                                       This Proposed Rule?
        B. What Is the Source of Authority for                                      B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?               B. What Is the Source of Authority for
           Development of NESHAP?                                                   C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?             Development of NESHAP?
        C. What Criteria Are Used in the                                            D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?
           Development of NESHAP?                                                   E. What Are the Energy Impacts?                       Section 112 of the CAA requires us to
        D. How Was This Proposed Rule                                               F. What Are the Cost Impacts?                      list categories and subcategories of
           Developed?                                                               G. Can We Achieve the Goals of the                 major sources and area sources of HAP
        E. What are the Health effects of the                                          Proposed Rule in a Less Costly manner?          and to establish NESHAP for the listed
           Pollutants Emitted From the PCWP                                         H. What Are the Economic Impacts?                  source categories and subcategories. The
           Industry?                                                                I. What Are the Social Costs and Benefits?         PCWP source category was originally
        F. Incorporation by Reference of NCASI                                    V. Relationship to Other Standards and               listed as the plywood and particleboard
           Test Methods                                                                Programs Under the CAA and Other                source category on July 16, 1992 (57 FR
        G. Alternative Procedure for Determining                                       Statutes
                                                                                                                                       31576). The name of the source category
           Press Enclosure Capture Efficiency                                       A. Wood Building Products Surface
                                                                                       Coating NESHAP Proposal                         was changed to plywood and composite
        H. Changes to the Scope of a Source
           Category                                                                 B. Wood Furniture Manufacturing                    wood products on November 18, 1999
     II. Summary of Proposed Rule                                                      Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63,              (64 FR 63025) to more accurately reflect
        A. What Process Units Are Subject to This                                      Subpart JJ)                                     the types of manufacturing facilities
           Proposed Rule?                                                           C. Combustion Related NESHAP                       covered by the source category. Major
        B. What Pollutants Are Regulated by This                                    D. New Source Review/Prevention of                 sources of HAP are those that have the
           Proposed Rule?                                                              Significant Deterioration Applicability         potential to emit greater than 10 tons/yr
        C. What are the Compliance Options?                                         E. Interrelationship between MACT                  of any one HAP or 25 tons per year of
        D. What Operating Requirements Are in                                          Provisions and PSD                              any combination of HAP.
           the Proposed Rule?                                                       F. Effluent Guidelines
        E. What Are the Work Practice                                             VI. Administrative Requirements                         Section 112(d) of the CAA directs us
           Requirements?                                                            A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory               to adopt emission standards for
        F. When Must I Comply With This                                                Planning and Review                             categories and subcategories of HAP
           Proposed Rule?                                                           B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism               sources. In cases where emission
        G. How Do I demonstrate Initial                                             C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation             standards are not feasible, section
           Compliance With This Proposed Rule?                                         and Coordination with Indian Tribal             112(h) of the CAA allows us to develop
        H. How Do I Demonstrate Continuous                                             Governments                                     design, equipment, work practice and/or
           Compliance With This Proposed Rule?                                      D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
     III. Rationale for Proposed Rule                                                  Children from Environmental Health
                                                                                                                                       operational standards. The collection of
        A. How Did We Select the Source Category                                       Risks and Safety Risks                          compliance options, operating
           and Any Subcategories?                                                   E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995            requirements, and work practice
        B. How Did We Define the Affected                                           F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as            requirements in today’s proposed rule
           Source?                                                                     amended by the Small Business                   make up the emission standards and


VerDate Dec<13>2002         16:26 Jan 08, 2003        Jkt 200001      PO 00000        Frm 00003   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1278                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     work practice standards for the PCWP                      We identified the MACT floor level of                possible human carcinogen (Group C)
     NESHAP.                                                 control with information obtained from                 based on limited animal cancer data
                                                             the questionnaire responses, emission                  suggesting an increased incidence of
     C. What Criteria Are Used in the
                                                             test reports, site visits, telephone                   tumors in rats exposed to acrolein in the
     Development of NESHAP?
                                                             contacts, and operating permits.                       drinking water.
        Section 112 of the CAA requires that                 E. What Are the Health Effects of the                  3. Formaldehyde
     we establish NESHAP for the control of                  Pollutants Emitted From the PCWP
     HAP from both new and existing major                    Industry?                                                 Both acute (short-term) and chronic
     sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP                                                                           (long-term) exposure to formaldehyde
     to reflect the maximum degree of                           This proposed rule protects air quality             irritates the eyes, nose, and throat, and
     reduction in emissions of HAP that is                   and promotes the public health by                      may cause coughing, chest pains, and
     achievable. This level of control is                    reducing emissions of some of the HAP                  bronchitis. Reproductive effects, such as
     commonly referred to as the MACT.                       listed in section 112(b)(1) of the CAA.                menstrual disorders and pregnancy
        The MACT floor is the minimum                        The HAP emitted by PCWP facilities                     problems, have been reported in female
     control level allowed for NESHAP and                    include, but are not limited to,                       workers exposed to formaldehyde.
     is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the               acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde,                  Limited human studies have reported an
     CAA. In essence, the MACT floor                         methanol, phenol, and                                  association between formaldehyde
     ensures that the standard is set at a level             propionaldehyde. Exposure to these                     exposure and lung and nasopharyngeal
     that assures that all major sources                     compounds has been demonstrated to                     cancer. Animal inhalation studies have
     achieve the level of control at least as                cause adverse health effects when                      reported an increased incidence of nasal
     stringent as that already achieved by the               present in concentrations higher than                  squamous cell cancer. We consider
     better-controlled and lower-emitting                    those typically found in ambient air.                  formaldehyde a probable human
                                                                We do not have the necessary data on
     sources in each source category or                                                                             carcinogen (Group B2).
                                                             each PCWP facility and the people
     subcategory. For new sources, the
                                                             living around each facility to determine               4. Methanol
     MACT floor cannot be less stringent
                                                             the actual population exposures to the
     than the emission control that is                                                                                Acute (short-term) or chronic (long-
                                                             HAP emitted from these facilities and
     achieved in practice by the best-                                                                              term) exposure of humans to methanol
                                                             the potential health effects. Therefore,
     controlled similar source. The MACT                                                                            by inhalation or ingestion may result in
                                                             we do not know the extent to which the
     standards for existing sources can be                                                                          blurred vision, headache, dizziness, and
                                                             adverse health effects described in the
     less stringent than standards for new                                                                          nausea. No information is available on
                                                             following subsections occur in the
     sources, but they cannot be less                                                                               the reproductive, developmental, or
                                                             populations surrounding these facilities.
     stringent than the average emission                                                                            carcinogenic effects of methanol in
                                                             However, to the extent the adverse
     limitation achieved by the best-                                                                               humans. Birth defects have been
                                                             effects do occur, today’s proposed rule
     performing 12 percent of existing                                                                              observed in the offspring of rats and
                                                             would reduce emissions and subsequent
     sources in the category or subcategory                                                                         mice exposed to methanol by
                                                             exposures.
     (or the best-performing 5 sources for                                                                          inhalation. A methanol inhalation study
     categories or subcategories with fewer                  1. Acetaldehyde                                        using rhesus monkeys reported a
     than 30 sources).                                          Acetaldehyde is ubiquitous in the                   decrease in the length of pregnancy and
        In developing MACT, we must also                     environment and may be formed in the                   limited evidence of impaired learning
     consider any control options that are                   body from the breakdown of ethanol                     ability in offspring. We have not
     more stringent than the floor. We may                   (ethyl alcohol). Acute (short-term)                    classified methanol with respect to
     establish standards more stringent than                 exposure to acetaldehyde results in                    carcinogenicity.
     the floor based on the consideration of                 effects including irritation of the eyes,              5. Phenol
     cost of achieving the emissions                         skin, and respiratory tract. In humans,
     reductions, any health and                              symptoms of chronic (long-term)                           Acute (short-term) inhalation and
     environmental impacts, and energy                       exposure to acetaldehyde resemble                      dermal exposure to phenol is highly
     requirements.                                           those of alcoholism. Long-term                         irritating to the skin, eyes, and mucous
                                                             inhalation exposure studies in animals                 membranes in humans. Oral exposure to
     D. How Was This Proposed Rule
                                                             reported damage to the nasal epithelium                small amounts of phenol may cause
     Developed?
                                                             and mucous membranes, growth                           irregular breathing, muscular weakness
       We used several resources to develop                  retardation, and increased kidney                      and tremors, coma, and respiratory
     this proposed rule, including                           weight. We have classified acetaldehyde                arrest at lethal concentrations. Anorexia,
     questionnaire responses from industry,                  as a probable human carcinogen (Group                  progressive weight loss, diarrhea,
     emissions test data, site visits to PCWP                B2) based on animal studies that have                  vertigo, salivation, and a dark coloration
     facilities, telephone contacts, and                     shown nasal tumors in rats and                         of the urine have been reported in
     operating permits. We consulted                         laryngeal tumors in hamsters.                          chronically (long-term) exposed
     representatives of the PCWP industry,                                                                          humans. Gastrointestinal irritation and
     State and Federal representatives, and                  2. Acrolein                                            blood and liver effects have also been
     emission control device vendors in                         Acute (short-term) inhalation                       reported. No studies of developmental
     developing this proposed rule. Industry                 exposure to acrolein may result in upper               or reproductive effects of phenol in
     representatives provided emissions test                 respiratory tract irritation and                       humans are available, but animal
     data, arranged site visits, reviewed draft              congestion. The major effects from                     studies have reported reduced fetal
     questionnaires, and identified issues                   chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure                body weights, growth retardation, and
     and provided information to help                        to acrolein in humans consist of general               abnormal development in the offspring
     resolve issues in the rulemaking                        respiratory congestion and eye, nose,                  of animals exposed to phenol by the oral
     process. State representatives provided                 and throat irritation. Acrolein is a strong            route. We have classified phenol in
     emissions test data and copies of                       dermal irritant, causing skin burns in                 Group D, not classifiable as to human
     permits.                                                humans. We consider acrolein a                         carcinogenicity.


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00004   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                             1279

     6. Propionaldehyde                                         The NCASI Method CI/WP–98.01 has                    as well. Because the design and
        No information is available on the                   been validated using EPA Method 301,                   operation of lumber kilns are essentially
     acute (short-term) effects of                           Field Validation of Pollutant                          the same regardless of whether the kilns
     propionaldehyde in humans. Animal                       Measurement Methods from Various                       are located at a sawmill or are co-
     studies have reported that inhalation                   Waste Media, for measuring methanol,                   located with PCWP or other types of
     exposure to high levels of                              formaldehyde, and phenol emissions                     manufacturing operations, we have
     propionaldehyde results in anesthesia                   from PCWP facilities. (EPA Method                      included lumber kilns in the PCWP
     and liver damage. No information is                     0011 is available in ‘‘Test Methods for                source category. Broadening the scope
     available on the chronic (long-term),                   Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/                      of the PCWP source category to include
     reproductive, developmental or                          Chemical Methods,’’ EPA Publication                    lumber kilns located at any type of
     carcinogenic effects of propionaldehyde                 No. SW–846. EPA Methods 301, 308,                      facility is reasonable because based on
     in animals or humans. We have not                       316, and 320 are in 40 CFR part 63,                    our information, there are no currently
     classified propionaldehyde for                          appendix A.)
                                                                In today’s proposed rule, NCASI                     applicable controls at any lumber kilns
     carcinogenicity.                                                                                               and it is both more efficient and
                                                             Method IM/CAN/WP–99.01, which is a
     F. Incorporation by Reference of NCASI                  self-validating method, would be                       expeditious to include them in the
     Test Methods                                            allowed, pending our review, as an                     MACT process now than to separately
       With today’s action, we are proposing                 alternative to:                                        address them in a rulemaking that
     to amend 40 CFR 63.14 by revising                          • EPA Method 320, for measuring                     would not likely result in meaningful
     paragraph (f) to incorporate by reference               methanol, formaldehyde, or total HAP;                  emissions reductions from lumber kilns.
     two test methods developed by the                          • EPA Methods 0011 and 316, for                     Moreover, including all lumber kilns in
     National Council of the Paper Industry                  measuring formaldehyde;                                the PCWP MACT results in placing
     for Air and Stream Improvement                             • EPA Method 308, for measuring                     them on a faster schedule for purposes
     (NCASI): (1) Method CI/WP–98.01,                        methanol; and                                          of future residual risk analysis under
     Chilled Impinger Method for Use at                         • NCASI Method CI/WP–98.01, for                     CAA section 112(f).
     Wood Products Mills to Measure                          measuring formaldehyde or methanol.
     Formaldehyde, Methanol, and Phenol;                                                                            II. Summary of Proposed Rule
                                                             G. Alternative Procedure for
     and (2) pending review by EPA, Method                   Determining Press Enclosure Capture                    A. What Process Units Are Subject to
     IM/CAN/WP–99.01, Impinger/Canister                      Efficiency                                             This Proposed Rule?
     Source Sampling Method for Selected
                                                               We are working with industry                            The proposed rule would regulate
     HAPs at Wood Products Facilities.
     These methods are available from the                    representatives to develop a procedure
                                                                                                                    HAP emissions from PCWP facilities
     NCASI, Methods Manual, P.O. Box                         that uses measurement of tracer gas to
                                                                                                                    that are major sources. Plywood and
     133318, Research Triangle Park, NC                      determine capture efficiency. We are
                                                             proposing this ‘‘tracer gas procedure’’                composite wood products are
     27709–3318 or at http://www.ncasi.org.                                                                         manufactured by bonding wood
     They are also available from the docket                 today in appendix A to the proposed
                                                             subpart DDDD.                                          material (fibers, particles, strands, etc.)
     for this proposed rule (Docket Number                                                                          or agricultural fiber, generally with resin
     A–98–44).                                               H. Changes to the Scope of a Source                    under heat and pressure, to form a
       In today’s proposed rule, NCASI                       Category                                               structural panel or engineered wood
     Method CI/WP–98.01 would be allowed
                                                                Today’s action serves to broaden the                product. Plywood and composite wood
     as an alternative to:
        • EPA Method 320, Measurement of                     PCWP source category to include                        products manufacturing facilities also
     Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic                       lumber kilns located at stand-alone kiln-              include facilities that manufacture dry
     Emission by Extractive FTIR, for                        dried lumber manufacturing facilities or               veneer and lumber kilns located at any
     measuring methanol or formaldehyde;                     at any other type of facility. Wood                    facility. Plywood and composite wood
        • EPA Method 0011, Sampling for                      products industry representatives                      products include (but are not limited to)
     Selected Aldehyde and Ketone                            requested that all lumber kilns                        plywood, veneer, particleboard,
     Emissions from Stationary Sources, for                  (regardless of location) be considered in              oriented strandboard, hardboard,
     measuring formaldehyde;                                 today’s proposed rule so there would be                fiberboard, medium density fiberboard,
        • EPA Method 316, Sampling and                       one MACT determination for all lumber                  laminated strand lumber, laminated
     Analysis for Formaldehyde Emissions                     kilns nationwide. If lumber kilns at                   veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-dried
     from Stationary Sources in the Mineral                  stand-alone kiln-dried lumber                          lumber, and glue-laminated beams.
     Wool and Wool Fiberglass Industries,                    manufacturing facilities and other types
                                                                                                                    Table 1 of this preamble lists the
     for measuring formaldehyde;                             of facilities are not included in the
                                                                                                                    process units at PCWP facilities and
        • EPA Method 308, Procedure for                      PCWP NESHAP, kiln-dried lumber
                                                                                                                    indicates which process units are
     Determination of Methanol Emission                      manufacturing could be listed as a major
                                                             source category under section 112(c) of                subject to the control requirements in
     from Stationary Sources, for measuring
                                                             the CAA in the future, requiring a                     today’s proposed rule. ‘‘Process unit’’
     methanol; and
        • NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–99.01                       separate section 112(d) rulemaking, and                means equipment classified according
     for measuring formaldehyde or                           may become separately subject to the                   to its function such as a blender, dryer,
     methanol.                                               provisions of section 112(g) of the CAA                press, former, or board cooler.




VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00005   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1280                        Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

                          TABLE 1.—PROCESS UNITS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
                                                                                                                                                        Does today’s proposed rule
                                                                                                                                                       include control requirements
                                                                                                                                                                 for . . .
                                                     For the following process units . . .
                                                                                                                                                          Existing           New affected
                                                                                                                                                          affected            sources?
                                                                                                                                                         sources?

     Softwood veneer dryers; tube dryers; strand dryers; green rotary dryers; hardboard ovens; reconstituted wood                                     Yes ................   Yes.
       product presses; and pressurized refiners.
     Press predryers; fiberboard mat dryers; and board coolers ....................................................................................   No .................   Yes.
     Dry rotary dryers; veneer redryers; plywood presses; engineered wood products presses; hardwood veneer                                           No .................   No.
       dryers; humidifiers; atmospheric refiners; formers; blenders; rotary agricultural fiber dryers; agricultural fiber
       board presses; sanders; saws; fiber washers; chippers; log vats; lumber kilns; storage tanks; wastewater op-
       erations; miscellaneous coating operations; and stand-alone digesters.



        The affected source for this proposed                      or formaldehyde as surrogates for                              devices used to reduce HAP emissions
     rule is the combination of all PCWP                           measuring total HAP.                                           to the atmosphere.
     manufacturing operations, including                                                                                             a. Reduce THC emissions (as carbon,
                                                                   C. What Are the Compliance Options?
     PCWP process units, onsite storage of                                                                                        and minus methane if you wish to
     raw materials, onsite wastewater                                Today’s proposed rule includes a                             subtract methane) by 90 percent.
     treatment operations associated with                          range of compliance options which are                             b. Reduce methanol emissions by 90
     PCWP manufacturing, and                                       summarized in the following                                    percent.
     miscellaneous coating operations                              subsections. You would have to use one                            c. Reduce formaldehyde emissions by
     located in a single facility covering a                       of the compliance options to show                              90 percent.
     contiguous area under common control                          compliance with the proposed rule. In                             d. Limit the concentration of THC (as
     that is also a major source. One of the                       most cases, the proposed compliance                            carbon, and minus methane if you wish
     implications of the proposed definition                       options would be the same for new and                          to subtract methane) in the outlet of the
     of affected source is that the control                        existing sources. Dilution to achieve                          add-on control system to 20 parts per
     requirements or ‘‘floor,’’ as defined in                      compliance is prohibited as specified in                       million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd).
     section 112(d)(3), are determined for the                     40 CFR 63.4.                                                      e. Limit the concentration of methanol
     entire PCWP facility. Therefore, except                                                                                      in the exhaust from the add-on control
                                                                   1. Production-Based Compliance
     for lumber kilns not otherwise located at                                                                                    system to 1 ppmvd (can be used only if
                                                                   Options
     PCWP facilities, this proposed rule                                                                                          the concentration of methanol entering
     contains the control requirements that                          Today’s proposed rule includes                               the control device is greater than or
     represent the MACT level of control for                       production-based compliance options                            equal to 10 ppmvd).
     the entire facility. For lumber kilns not                     which are based on total HAP and vary                             f. Limit the concentration of
     otherwise located at PCWP facilities,                         according to type of process unit. Total                       formaldehyde in the exhaust from the
     this proposed rule contains the control                       HAP emissions are defined in today’s                           add-on control system to 1 ppmvd (can
     requirements that represent the MACT                          proposed rule as the total mass                                be used only if the concentration of
     level of control only for lumber kilns.                       emissions of the following six HAP:                            formaldehyde entering the control
                                                                   Acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde,                          device is greater than or equal to 10
     B. What Pollutants Are Regulated by
                                                                   methanol, phenol, and                                          ppmvd).
     This Proposed Rule?
                                                                   propionaldehyde. The production-based                             In the first three options (a through c),
        The proposed rule would regulate                           compliance options are in units of mass                        the 90 percent control efficiency
     HAP emissions from PCWP facilities.                           of pollutant per unit of production.                           represents a total control efficiency.
     For the purpose of compliance with 40                         Add-on control systems may not be                              Total control efficiency is defined as the
     CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, we defined                         used to meet the production-based                              product of the capture efficiency and
     ‘‘total HAP’’ to be the sum of the                            compliance options. For pressurized                            the control device efficiency. For
     emissions of six primary HAP emitted                          refiners and most dryers, the                                  process units such as rotary strand
     from PCWP manufacturing. For the                              production-based compliance options                            dryers, capture efficiency is not an issue
     purpose of determining whether your                           are expressed as pounds per oven-dried-                        because the rotary strand dryer has a
     facility is a major source, you would                         ton of wood (lb/ODT). For presses,                             single exhaust point which is easily
     have to include all HAP as prescribed                         hardboard ovens, and some dryers, the                          captured by the control device.
     by rules and guidance pertaining to                           production-based compliance options                            However, for presses and board coolers,
     determination of major source.                                are expressed as pounds per thousand                           the HAP emissions cannot be
        The six HAP that define ‘‘total HAP’’                      square feet of board (lb/MSF), with a                          completely captured without installing
     are: Acetaldehyde, acrolein,                                  reference board thickness.                                     an enclosure. If the enclosure meets the
     formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and                                                                                          criteria for a permanent total enclosure
                                                                   2. Add-On Control System Compliance
     propionaldehyde. Other HAP are                                                                                               (PTE) as described in EPA Test Method
                                                                   Options
     sometimes emitted and controlled along                                                                                       204 (40 CFR part 51, appendix M), then
     with these six HAP, but in low                                  If you operate a process unit equipped                       you could assign the enclosure a capture
     quantities that may be difficult to                           with an add-on control system, you may                         efficiency of 100 percent. You would
     measure. Depending upon which of the                          use any one of the following six                               have to test other enclosures to
     compliance alternatives you choose, you                       compliance options. ‘‘Add-on control                           determine capture efficiency using EPA
     could be required to measure emissions                        system’’ or ‘‘control system’’ means the                       Test Methods 204 and 204A through
     of total hydrocarbon (THC), methanol,                         combination of capture and control                             204F (as appropriate) or the alternative


VerDate Dec<13>2002     16:26 Jan 08, 2003    Jkt 200001    PO 00000     Frm 00006     Fmt 4701    Sfmt 4702    E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM        09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                            1281

     tracer gas procedure in today’s proposed                required mass removal (RMR) of total                   greater than or equal to the minimum
     rule. For the three concentration options               HAP from debit-generating process units                temperature established during the
     (d through f), you would need to have                   for a 6-month compliance period. Total                 performance test. You would also be
     an enclosure that either meets the                      HAP is defined in today’s proposed rule                required to maintain the average static
     criteria for a PTE or achieves a capture                to include acetaldehyde, acrolein,                     pressure at the inlet of the thermal
     efficiency greater than or equal to 95                  formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and                    oxidizer within the operating range
     percent.                                                propionaldehyde. The RMR would be                      established during the performance test.
        The six compliance options are                       based on initial total HAP                             You may choose to monitor gas flow
     equivalent ways to express the HAP                      measurements for each debit-generating                 rate at the thermal oxidizer stack as an
     control levels that represent the MACT                  process unit, your process unit                        alternative to monitoring static pressure.
     floor. Because the compliance options                   operating hours for a 6-month period,                  If you monitor gas flow, you must
     are equivalent for controlling HAP                      and the required 90 percent control                    maintain the gas flow rate below the
     emissions, you would be required to                     system efficiency. One hundred percent                 maximum flow rate established during
     meet only one compliance option for                     of the RMR for debit-generating process                the performance test. If you operate a
     add-on control systems. For example, if                 units would have to be achieved or                     combustion unit that accepts process
     you elect to test your control system for               exceeded by the actual mass removal                    exhaust into the flame zone and that
     THC and formaldehyde and the test                       (AMR) of total HAP achieved by credit-                 combustion unit has a heat input
     results demonstrate compliance with                     generating process units. The AMR is                   capacity of greater than or equal to 44
     only the THC or only the formaldehyde                   determined based on initial                            megawatts (MW), you would be exempt
     compliance option, you would still be                   performance tests, the total HAP                       from the testing and monitoring
     in compliance with today’s proposed                     removal efficiency of the control                      requirements described above for
     rule.                                                   systems used to control the credit-                    thermal oxidizers.
                                                             generating process units, and your                        • If you operate a catalytic oxidizer,
     3. Emissions Averaging Compliance
                                                             process unit operating hours over the 6-               such as a regenerative catalytic oxidizer
     Option
                                                             month period.                                          (RCO) or thermal catalytic oxidizer
        The CAA does not limit how we set                       There are some restrictions on use of               (TCO), you would be required to
     control requirements beyond requiring                   the emissions averaging provisions in                  maintain the temperature upstream of
     that they be applicable to all sources in               today’s proposed rule. You would have                  the catalyst bed at or above the
     a category and be at least as stringent as              to limit emissions averaging to the                    minimum temperature established
     the MACT floor. Therefore, the relevant                 process units located within your                      during the performance test. You would
     statutory language does not prohibit us                 affected source. Emissions averaging                   also be required to maintain the average
     from allowing a source to meet MACT                     could not be used at new affected                      static pressure at the inlet of the
     through use of emissions averaging as                   sources. You could not include in an                   catalytic oxidizer within the operating
     long as averaging does not cross source                 emissions average those process units                  range established during the
     category boundaries, and the standard is                that are not operating or that are shut                performance test. You may choose to
     set at a level at least as stringent as the             down. You could not include in your                    monitor gas flow rate at the catalytic
     MACT floor. As explained in this                        emissions average those process units                  oxidizer stack as an alternative to
     preamble, we believe we have met these                  controlled to comply with a State or                   monitoring static pressure. If you
     criteria. In addition, it should be noted               Federal rule other than today’s proposed               monitor gas flow, you must maintain the
     that Congress explicitly provided that                  rule (unless the process unit was                      gas flow rate below the maximum flow
     cost should be considered in setting the                included in an emissions average and                   rate established during the performance
     standards. Emissions averaging is a                     the control system was installed before                test.
     means of achieving the required                         the process unit was subject to the other                 • If you operate a biofilter, you would
     emissions reductions in a cost effective                State or Federal rule). Only PCWP                      be required to maintain the temperature
     way. Therefore, if you operate an                       process units using add-on control                     of the air stream entering the biofilter,
     existing affected source, you could                     systems may be used to generate credits.               pH of the biofilter effluent, and pressure
     choose to comply with the emissions                                                                            drop across the biofilter bed within the
     averaging provisions instead of the                     D. What Operating Requirements Are in                  ranges you specify during the initial
     production-based compliance options or                  the Proposed Rule?                                     performance test or during qualifying
     add-on control system compliance                           The operating requirements in today’s               previous performance tests using the
     options.                                                proposed rule would apply to add-on                    required test methods. If you use values
        Emissions averaging is a system of                   control systems used to comply with the                from previous performance tests to
     debits and credits in which the credits                 proposed rule and to process units that                establish the operating parameter
     must equal or exceed the debits. ‘‘Debit-               can meet the proposed production-                      ranges, you would have to certify that
     generating process units’’ are the PCWP                 based compliance options. For                          the biofilter and associated process
     process units required to meet the                      incineration-based control devices and                 unit(s) have not been modified
     proposed control requirements that you                  biofilters, the proposed rule specifies                subsequent to the date the previous data
     choose to either not control or under-                  that you would either monitor operating                were collected.
     control. ‘‘Credit-generating process                    parameters or use a THC continuous                        • If you operate an add-on control
     units’’ are the PCWP process units that                 emission monitoring system (CEMS) to                   system not listed in today’s proposed
     you choose to control. You may take                     demonstrate continuous compliance.                     rule, you would establish operating
     credit for emissions from debit-                        The proposed operating requirements                    parameters to be monitored and
     generating process units that are under-                are summarized below:                                  parameter values that represent your
     controlled. Control devices used for                       • If you operate a thermal oxidizer,                operating requirements during the
     credit-generating process units may not                 such as a regenerative thermal oxidizer                performance test, subject to prior
     be assigned more than 90 percent                        (RTO) or a combustion unit that accepts                written approval by the Administrator.
     control efficiency.                                     process exhaust into the flame zone, you                  • If you operate a process unit that
        Under the emissions averaging                        would be required to maintain the                      can meet the production-based
     provisions, you would determine the                     firebox temperature at a level that is                 compliance options without an add-on


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00007   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1282                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     control device, you would be required                   date must comply immediately upon                      requirements for the control systems. If
     to maintain the average process unit                    initial startup or on the effective date of            your add-on control system is preceded
     inlet or operating temperature                          the rule, whichever is later.                          by a particulate control device, you
     (depending on the specific process unit)                                                                       would only be required to establish
                                                             G. How Do I Demonstrate Initial
     below the maximum temperature                                                                                  operating parameter values for the HAP
                                                             Compliance With This Proposed Rule?
     established during the performance test.                                                                       control system and not for the
        • As an alternative to monitoring the                  The initial compliance requirements                  particulate control device. If your
     operating parameters specified above for                in today’s proposed rule vary with the                 control device is a biofilter, then you
     thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers,                 different compliance options.                          may use historical operating records for
     biofilters, other control devices, and                  1. Production-Based Compliance                         the biofilter to establish your operating
     process units that meet the compliance                  Options                                                requirements as long as you were in
     options for process units without add-                                                                         compliance with the emission limits in
     on control systems, you would be                           If you are complying with the                       today’s proposed rule when the data
     allowed to monitor THC concentration                    production-based compliance options in                 were collected, the test data were
     in the outlet stack with a THC CEMS.                    today’s proposed rule, you would be                    obtained using the test methods in
     You would be required to maintain the                   required to conduct an initial                         today’s proposed rule, and no
     outlet THC concentration below the                      performance test using specified test                  modifications were made to the process
     maximum concentration established                       methods to demonstrate initial                         unit or biofilter subsequent to the date
     during the performance test. You may                    compliance. You would be required to                   the historical data were collected.
     choose to subtract methane from the                     test the efficiency of your emissions
                                                             capture device during the initial                      3. Emissions Averaging Compliance
     THC concentration measured by the                                                                              Option
     CEMS if you wish to do so.                              compliance test if the process unit is a
                                                             press or board cooler. The actual                         If you elect to comply with the
     E. What Are the Work Practice                           emission rate of the press or board                    emissions averaging compliance option
     Requirements?                                           cooler would be equivalent to the                      in today’s proposed rule, you would be
       The work practice requirements in                     measured emissions divided by the                      required to submit an Emissions
     today’s proposed rule apply to veneer                   capture efficiency. You would be                       Averaging Plan (EAP) to the
     dryers, dry rotary dryers, veneer                       required to install process (temperature)              Administrator for approval. The EAP
     redryers, and hardwood veneer dryers.                   monitoring equipment to be used to                     would describe the process units you
     For veneer dryers, the proposed work                    demonstrate compliance with the                        are including in the emissions average.
     practice requirements require you to                    operating requirements for process units               The plan also would specify which
     minimize fugitive emissions from the                    without add-on control systems or                      process units will be credit-generating
     veneer dryer doors (by applying                         install a THC CEMS and monitor the                     units and which process units will be
     appropriate operation and maintenance                   outlet THC concentration. During the                   debit-generating units. The EAP would
     procedures) and from the green end of                   initial compliance test, you would use                 also have to include descriptions of the
     the dryers (through proper balancing of                 the process monitoring equipment to                    control systems used to generate
     hot zone exhausts). The proposed work                   establish the parameter value that                     emission credits, documentation of the
     practice requirements also specify                      represents your operating requirement                  total HAP measurements made to
     parameters that you would monitor to                    for the process unit.                                  determine the RMR, calculations and
     demonstrate that each dry rotary dryer,                 2. Add-On Control System Compliance                    supporting documentation to
     redryer, and hardwood veneer dryer                                                                             demonstrate that the AMR will be
                                                             Options
     continuously operates in a manner                                                                              greater than or equal to the RMR, and
     consistent with the definitions of these                   If you use the compliance options for               a summary of the operating parameters
     process units provided in today’s                       add-on control systems, you would be                   that will be monitored for the credit-
     proposed rule, as follows:                              required to conduct an initial                         generating units.
       • If you operate a dry rotary dryer,                  performance test using specified test                     Following approval of your EAP, you
     you would be required to maintain the                   methods to demonstrate initial                         would be required to conduct
     inlet dryer temperature at or below 600                 compliance. With the exception of the                  performance tests to determine the total
     °F and maintain the moisture content of                 20 ppmvd THC concentration option,                     HAP emissions from all process units
     the wood particles entering the dryer at                you would be required to test at both the              included in the EAP. The credit-
     or below 30 weight percent, on a dry                    inlet and the outlet of the control                    generating process units would be
     basis.                                                  device. If you use any of the six                      equipped with add-on control systems;
       • If you operate a veneer redryer, you                compliance options for add-on control                  therefore, for those process units, you
     would be required to maintain the                       systems, and the process unit is a press               would follow the procedures for
     moisture content of the wood veneer                     or a board cooler without a PTE, you                   demonstrating initial compliance as
     entering the dryer at or below 25                       would also be required to test the                     outlined above for add-on control
     percent, by weight.                                     capture efficiency of your partial                     systems. The emissions averaging
       • If you operate a hardwood veneer                    enclosure. Prior to the initial                        provisions would require you to
     dryer, you would be required to process                 performance test, you would be required                conduct all total HAP measurements
     less than 30 percent, by volume,                        to install control device parameter                    and performance test(s) when the
     softwood species each year.                             monitoring equipment or THC CEMS to                    process units are operating under
                                                             be used to demonstrate compliance with                 representative operating conditions.
     F. When Must I Comply With This                         the operating requirements for add-on                  Today’s proposed rule defines
     Proposed Rule?                                          control systems in today’s proposed                    ‘‘representative operating conditions’’ as
       Existing PCWP facilities must comply                  rule. During the initial compliance test,              those conditions under which the
     within 3 years of the date the                          you would use the control device                       process unit will be typically operating
     promulgated rule is published in the                    parameter monitoring equipment or                      following the compliance date.
     Federal Register. New sources that                      THC CEMS to establish the parameter                    Representative conditions would
     commence construction after today’s                     values that represent your operating                   include such things as using a


VerDate Dec<13>2002   17:25 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00008   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                             1283

     representative range of materials (e.g.,                veneer redryers, you would have to                     maximum temperature established
     wood material of a typical species mix                  install a device that can be used to                   during the performance test.
     and moisture content, typical resin                     continuously monitor the moisture                        Instead of operating a CPMS, you
     formulations) and operating the process                 content (dry basis) of veneer entering                 could choose to operate a CEMS for
     unit at typical operating temperature                   the dryer. You would then use the                      monitoring THC concentration to
     ranges.                                                 moisture monitoring device to                          demonstrate compliance with the
                                                             continuously monitor and record the                    operating requirements in today’s
     4. Work Practice Requirements                                                                                  proposed rule. If you choose to operate
                                                             inlet moisture content of the veneer for
        The work practice requirements in                    a minimum of 30 days. If the monitoring                a THC CEMS in lieu of a CPMS, you
     today’s proposed rule do not require                    data indicate that your veneer dryer                   would have to demonstrate continuous
     you to conduct any initial performance                  continuously processed veneer with a                   compliance as described in the
     tests. To demonstrate initial compliance                moisture content less than or equal to 25              following subsection.
     with the work practice requirements for                 percent during the minimum 30-day
     dry rotary dryers, you would have to                                                                           2. Add-On Control System Compliance
                                                             demonstration period, then your veneer                 Options
     install parameter monitoring devices to                 dryer would meet the definition of a
     continuously monitor the dryer inlet                    veneer redryer in today’s proposed rule.                  For add-on control systems, you
     operating temperature and the moisture                  You would submit the monitoring data                   would have to install a CPMS to
     content (dry basis) of the wood furnish                 as part of your notification of                        monitor the specified control device
     (i.e., wood fibers, particles, or strands               compliance status report.                              operating parameter(s) or install a CEMS
     used for making board) entering the                                                                            to monitor THC concentration to
     dryer. You would then use the                           H. How Do I Demonstrate Continuous                     demonstrate compliance with the
     parameter monitoring devices to                         Compliance With This Proposed Rule?                    operating requirements in today’s
     continuously monitor and record the                                                                            proposed rule. If you operate a CPMS,
                                                               The continuous compliance
     dryer temperature and wood furnish                                                                             it would have to collect data at least
                                                             requirements in today’s proposed rule
     moisture content for a minimum of 30                                                                           every 15 minutes, and you would need
                                                             vary with the different types of
     days. If the monitoring data indicate                                                                          to have at least three data points per
                                                             compliance options.
     that during the minimum 30-day                                                                                 hour to have a valid hour of data. You
     demonstration period, your dry rotary                   1. Production-Based Compliance                         would have to operate the CPMS at all
     dryer continuously processed wood                       Options                                                times the process unit is operating. You
     furnish with an inlet moisture content                                                                         also would have to conduct proper
                                                                If you comply with the production-                  maintenance of the CPMS and maintain
     less than or equal to 30 percent, and the
                                                             based compliance options, then you                     an inventory of necessary parts for
     dryer was continuously operated at an
     inlet dryer temperature less than or                    would have to install a continuous                     routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the
     equal to 600 °F, then your dryer would                  parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to                  data collected with the CPMS, you
     meet the definition of a dry rotary dryer               monitor the process operating                          would calculate and record the average
     in today’s proposed rule. You would                     parameter(s) used to demonstrate                       values of each operating parameter
     submit the monitoring data as part of                   compliance with the operating                          according to the specified averaging
     your notification of compliance status                  requirements in today’s proposed rule.                 times.
     report.                                                 Your CPMS would have to collect data                      For thermal oxidizers, you would
        To demonstrate initial compliance                    at least every 15 minutes, and you                     have to continuously maintain the 3-
     with the work practice requirements for                 would need to have at least three data                 hour block average firebox temperature
     hardwood veneer dryers, you would                       points per hour to have a valid hour of                at or above the minimum temperature
     have to calculate the annualized                        data. You would have to operate the                    established during the performance test.
     percentage of softwood veneer                           CPMS at all times the process unit is                  For catalytic oxidizers, you would have
     processed in the dryer by volume, using                 operating. You also would have to                      to continuously maintain the 3-hour
     veneer dryer production records for the                 conduct proper maintenance of the                      block average temperature upstream of
     12-month period prior to the                            CPMS and maintain an inventory of                      the catalyst bed at or above the
     compliance date. If the total annual                    necessary parts for routine repairs of the             minimum value established during the
     percentage by volume of softwood                        CPMS. Using the data collected with the                performance test. For both thermal and
     veneer is less than 30 percent, your                    CPMS, you would calculate and record                   catalytic oxidizers, you would also have
     veneer dryer would meet the definition                  the 3-hour block average values of each                to continuously maintain the 3-hour
     of hardwood veneer dryer. You would                     process operating parameter.                           block average static pressure at the inlet
     then submit a summary of the                               The process operating parameter you                 of the thermal oxidizer within the
     production data for the 12-month period                 would monitor for green rotary dryers,                 operating range established during the
     and a statement verifying that the                      tube dryers, and strand dryers is dryer                performance test. As an alternative to
     veneer dryer will continue to process                   inlet temperature. The process operating               monitoring static pressure, you may
     less than 30 percent softwoods as part                  parameter you would monitor for                        monitor gas flow rate at the oxidizer
     of your notification of compliance status               hardboard ovens, press predryers,                      stack. If you monitor gas flow, you must
     report.                                                 reconstituted wood product presses,                    maintain the 3-hour block average gas
        To demonstrate initial compliance                    fiberboard mat dryer hot zones, and                    flow rate below the maximum flow rate
     with the work practice requirements for                 softwood veneer dryer hot zones is                     established during the performance test.
     softwood veneer dryers, you would have                  operating temperature. You would not                      For biofilters, you would have to
     to develop a plan for minimizing                        be required to monitor process                         maintain the gas temperature entering
     fugitive emissions from the veneer dryer                parameters for reconstituted wood                      the biofilter, effluent pH, and pressure
     green end and heated zones. You would                   product board coolers or pressurized                   drop across the biofilter bed within the
     submit the plan with your notification                  refiners. For each temperature                         operating ranges you establish. You
     of compliance status report.                            parameter, you would have to                           would establish your biofilter operating
        To demonstrate initial compliance                    continuously maintain the 3-hour block                 parameter limits, their monitoring
     with the work practice requirements for                 average temperature below the                          frequencies, and their averaging times


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00009   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1284                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     based on data collected during the                      Administrator, it would have to be                     veneer redryers, you would have to
     initial performance test or during                      incorporated into your title V permit.                 continuously monitor and maintain the
     qualifying previous performance tests                   The compliance options and operating                   inlet veneer moisture content at or
     using the required test methods. If you                 requirements would not apply during                    below 25 percent.
     use values from previous performance                    times when control device maintenance                    To demonstrate continuous
     tests to establish the operating                        covered under your approved routine                    compliance with the work practice
     parameter ranges, you would have to                     control device maintenance exemption                   requirements for softwood veneer
     certify that the biofilter and associated               is performed. The routine control device               dryers, you would have to follow the
     process unit(s) have not been modified                  maintenance exemption may not exceed                   procedures in your operating plan for
     subsequent to the date the previous data                3 percent of annual operating uptime for               minimizing fugitive emissions from the
     were collected. If previous performance                 each green rotary dryer, tube dryer,                   green end and heated zones of the
     test data are not available (as would be                strand dryer, or pressurized refiner                   veneer dryer and maintain records
     the case for a new biofilter installation)              controlled. The routine control device                 documenting that you have followed
     you would be allowed up to 180 days                     maintenance exemption is limited to 0.5                your plan. For hardwood veneer dryers,
     after the compliance date to gather the                 percent of the annual operating uptime                 you would have to continue to process
     necessary information and establish                     for each softwood veneer dryer,                        less than 30 percent softwood veneer by
     your biofilter operating parameter                      reconstituted wood product press,                      volume and maintain records on veneer
     ranges.                                                 reconstituted wood product board                       dryer production.
        If you choose to operate a CEMS for                  cooler, hardboard oven, press predryer,
     monitoring THC concentration instead                    or fiberboard mat dryer controlled. If                 III. Rationale for Proposed Rule
     of operating a CPMS, you must install,                  your control device is used to control a               A. How Did We Select the Source
     operate, and maintain the CEMS                          combination of equipment with                          Category and Any Subcategories?
     according to Performance Specification                  different downtime allowances (e.g., a
     8 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. You                    tube dryer and a press), then the highest                 The PCWP source category includes
     would also be required to comply with                   (i.e., 3 percent) downtime allowance                   the manufacture of many types of wood
     the CEMS data quality assurance                         applies.                                               products, including (but not limited to)
     requirements in Procedure 1 of                                                                                 plywood, veneer, particleboard,
     appendix F of 40 CFR part 60. You                       3. Emissions Averaging Compliance                      oriented strandboard, hardboard,
     would be required to conduct a                          Option                                                 fiberboard, medium density fiberboard,
     performance evaluation of the CEMS                         To demonstrate continuous                           laminated strand lumber, laminated
     according to 40 CFR 63.8 and                            compliance with the emissions                          veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-dried
     Performance Specification 8. The CEMS                   averaging provisions, you would have to                lumber, and glue-laminated beams.
     would have to complete a minimum of                     continuously comply with the                           During our review of the available
     one cycle of operation (sampling,                       applicable operating requirements for                  information on this source category, we
     analyzing, and data recording) for each                 add-on control systems (described in the               found that the processes used to
     successive 15-minute period. Using the                  previous subsection). You also would                   produce the different types of wood
     data collected with the CEMS, you                       have to maintain records of your                       products were more similar than
     would calculate and record the 3-hour                   operating hours for each process unit                  dissimilar with respect to the types of
     block average THC concentration. You                    included in the EAP. For each                          equipment used and the HAP emitted.
     would have to continuously monitor                      semiannual compliance period, you                      Published definitions of the various
     and maintain the 3-hour block average                   would have to demonstrate that the                     wood products often group several types
     THC concentration at or below the                       AMR equals or exceeds the RMR using                    of products together or overlap with
     maximum established during the                          your initial (or most recent) total HAP                definitions developed for other similar
     performance test. You may use a CEMS                    measurements for debit-generating                      wood products. As the wood products
     capable of subtracting methane from the                 units, initial (or most recent)                        industry continues its relatively high
     measured THC concentration if you                       performance test results for credit-                   rate of growth, new and different wood
     wish to do so.                                          generating units, and the operating                    products are coming into the
        If you comply with today’s proposed                  hours recorded for the semiannual                      marketplace, some of which are hybrids
     rule using an add-on control system,                    compliance period.                                     of existing wood products or modified
     you could request a routine control                                                                            versions of existing wood products.
                                                             4. Work Practice Requirements                          Because the differences between many
     device maintenance exemption from the
     Administrator. Your request for a                          To demonstrate continuous                           of the product lines are already
     routine control device maintenance                      compliance with the work practice                      somewhat blurred and the equipment
     exemption would have to document the                    requirements for dry rotary dryers and                 that is used to manufacture wood
     need for routine maintenance on the                     veneer redryers, you would be required                 products cuts across industry sectors,
     control device and the time required to                 to operate all dry rotary dryers and                   we determined that establishing
     accomplish the maintenance, describe                    veneer redryers so that they                           subcategories based on product type
     the maintenance activities and the                      continuously meet the definitions of                   was unwarranted and could seriously
     frequency of these activities, explain                  these process units in today’s proposed                hamper applicability determinations.
     why the maintenance could not be                        rule. For dry rotary dryers, you would                 Therefore, today’s proposed rule does
     accomplished during process                             have to continuously monitor and                       not establish any subcategories under
     shutdowns, describe how you plan to                     maintain the inlet furnish moisture                    the PCWP source category.
     minimize emissions to the greatest                      content at or below 30 percent and the
     extent possible during these                            inlet dryer operating temperature at or                B. How Did We Define the Affected
     maintenance activities, and provide any                 below 600 °F. You would also have to                   Source?
     other documentation required by the                     manually measure the moisture content                    In today’s proposed rule, the affected
     Administrator. If your request for the                  of a representative sample of the inlet                source is the collection of process units
     routine control device maintenance                      wood furnish once per day to verify the                associated with the manufacturing of
     exemption is approved by the                            readings from the moisture meter. For                  PCWP at a plant site. The affected


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00010   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                            1285

     source includes, but is not limited to,                 opportunities for emissions averaging.                 emissions data for each facility to
     those process units found in green end                  The affected source definition we                      determine the percent reduction in HAP
     operations, drying operations, blending                 selected is the same for both new and                  emissions achieved by each facility. We
     and forming operations, pressing and                    existing sources.                                      do not have actual facilitywide
     board cooling operations, and                              The affected source includes lumber                 emissions data; however, we have
     miscellaneous finishing operations                      kilns co-located at PCWP manufacturing                 accurate and complete information on
     (such as sanding, sawing, patching, edge                facilities and lumber kilns at other                   the type and number of individual
     sealing, and other finishing operations                 facilities that do not manufacture PCWP                process units at PCWP facilities. In
     not subject to other NESHAP). The                       (i.e., stand-alone kiln-dried lumber                   addition, emissions data are based on
     affected source also includes onsite                    manufacturing facilities such as                       process unit data. Therefore, we decided
     storage of raw materials used in the                    sawmills). Wood products industry                      to apply the MACT floor methodology at
     manufacture of PCWP, such as resins,                    representatives requested that all                     the process-unit level. Our information
     onsite wastewater treatment operations                  lumber kilns (regardless of location) be               is especially accurate and complete for
     specifically associated with PCWP                       considered in today’s proposed rule so                 dryers and presses, which are generally
     manufacturing, and miscellaneous                        there would be one MACT                                the highest-emitting process units and
     coating operations. The affected source                 determination for all lumber kilns                     the ones most likely to have add-on
     includes lumber kilns at PCWP                           nationwide.                                            control systems that reduce HAP
     manufacturing facilities and at any other                  If lumber kilns at stand-alone kiln-                emissions from PCWP facilities. With
     facility.                                               dried lumber manufacturing facilities                  this approach, the sourcewide MACT
        Miscellaneous coating operations are                 are not included in the PCWP NESHAP,                   floor is represented by the MACT floor
     activities such as edge coating of PCWP,                those stand-alone facilities could be                  level of control established for each
     labeling and printing on PCWP,                          listed as a major source category under                process unit group. We believe that
     application of anti-skid coatings, putty/               section 112(c) of the CAA in the future                applying the MACT floor methodology
     patching operations at plywood                          and may be subject to the provisions of                to process unit groups results in the
     facilities, etc. Only those onsite                      section 112(g) of the CAA as well. We                  closest possible approximation of the
     miscellaneous coating operations at                     believe no additional emissions                        true sourcewide MACT floor, since it
     PCWP manufacturing facilities that are                  reductions would be accomplished by                    better enables us to take into account
     listed in § 63.2292 of today’s proposed                 listing lumber kilns as a separate source              process unit-specific emissions data. We
     rule are covered by these proposed                      category or by having them regulated by                do not believe the results from this
     NESHAP. We specifically excluded                        case-by-case MACT. We believe this                     approach are significantly different from
     these miscellaneous coatings operations                 because: (1) The design and operation of               what they would be if facilitywide
     from the proposed Wood Building                         lumber kilns are essentially the same                  source-specific data had been available.
     Products Surface Coating NESHAP (40                     regardless of whether the kilns are                       We determined the MACT floor
     CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ). We                          located at a sawmill or co-located with                control level for existing sources using
     included these sources in the definition                PCWP manufacturing operations, (2) we                  the following procedure:
     of affected source for PCWP because                     know of no lumber kilns that are                          • We reviewed available data on
     these miscellaneous coating operations                  controlled for HAP, and (3) we know of                 pollution prevention techniques and the
     are part of the PCWP manufacturing                      no cost effective HAP controls for                     performance of add-on control devices
     process and are performed at the same                   lumber kilns. In addition, we know of                  and identified those add-on control
     location.                                               no additional recordkeeping or                         systems that were best at reducing HAP
        To provide compliance flexibility, we                reporting that stand-alone facilities                  emissions;
     defined the affected source as the                      would incur by being part of the PCWP                     • For each process unit group
     combination of all of the process units                 source category since the PCWP source                  identified in Table 1 of this preamble,
     at a PCWP manufacturing facility. Many                  category includes only major sources.                  we ranked the process units in that
     of the PCWP facilities that already                     Including stand-alone kilns in the                     group from the best performing to the
     control HAP emissions to the levels that                PCWP source category will save                         worst performing based on the type of
     would be required in today’s proposed                   resources for regulatory agencies and                  add-on control system applied to each
     rule do so by first combining emissions                 industry and does not forego HAP                       process unit;
     from different process units and then                   reductions; therefore, we are proposing                   • For each process unit group, we
     controlling the combined emissions in                   stand-alone kilns as part of the PCWP                  then identified the add-on control
     one or more emission control devices.                   source category.                                       system that represented the MACT floor
     Much of the control device efficiency                                                                          technology; and
                                                             C. How Did We Determine the MACT
     data used to set the proposed
                                                             Floor for Existing Sources?                               • Using available information on the
     compliance options for add-on control                                                                          performance of the add-on control
     systems was based on control                               Section 112(l)(3) of the CAA specifies              systems, we determined the
     equipment that was used to control                      that each MACT standard be at least as                 performance level of the add-on control
     emissions from multiple types of                        stringent as the floor for the sources in              systems.
     process units. As a result, the required                the relevant source category or                           This procedure is explained in more
     level of control would be the same for                  subcategory. Today’s proposed PCWP                     detail in the following paragraphs.
     most types of process units. For                        rule does not have subcategories;                      Additional information on how we
     example, the control level for new and                  therefore, the average emission                        determined the proposed MACT floor
     existing reconstituted wood products                    limitation achieved by the best-                       for the PCWP industry is available in
     presses would be the same as the                        performing 12 percent of all major                     the docket for this rule (Docket Number
     control level for new and existing tube                 PCWP facilities represents the MACT                    A–98–44).
     dryers. We believe that the proposed                    floor for the source category. In order to
     broad definition of affected source is                  rank the PCWP facilities based on                      1. Identifying the Best-Performing Add-
     consistent with the way the industry                    performance, we would need                             On Control Systems
     applies add-on control devices, and that                facilitywide uncontrolled emissions                       Although we believe that the potential
     it creates more meaningful                              data and facilitywide controlled                       for pollution prevention exists for some


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00011   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1286                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     facilities in the PCWP industry, we are                 formaldehyde emissions reductions                         With a few exceptions, there were at
     not aware of any demonstrated                           equal to or greater than 90 percent,                   least 30 process units in each process
     pollution prevention techniques that                    except in those cases where the                        unit group. As discussed in section I.C,
     can be universally applied across the                   pollutant loadings of the emission                     when there are at least 30 sources in the
     industry. Furthermore, we have no                       stream entering the control systems                    source category, the MACT floor for
     information on the degree of emissions                  were very low. The performance data for                existing sources is equivalent to the
     reduction that can be achieved through                  THC showed that incineration-based                     average emission limitation achieved by
     pollution prevention measures. The                      control systems could achieve THC                      the best-performing 12 percent of
     PCWP facilities use add-on control                      emissions reductions equal to or greater               existing sources in that group. Our
     devices because there currently are no                  than 90 percent. The THC emissions                     interpretation of the ‘‘average emission
     feasible pollution prevention measures.                 reductions achieved with biofilters                    limitation’’ is that it is a measure of
     Therefore, we focused our analysis on                   varied somewhat, with an average THC                   central tendency, such as the median. If
     the performance of add-on control                       reduction of about 80 percent. Although                the median is used when there are at
     devices. We reviewed the available data                 biofilters are less effective in reducing              least 30 process units in a process unit
     on control device performance to                        some of the less water-soluble VOC                     group, then the emission level
     determine which add-on control                          compounds, such as pinenes, that make                  achievable by the process unit and its
     systems are best at reducing HAP                        up a portion of the THC measurements,
                                                                                                                    control system that is at the bottom of
     emissions. We focused our analysis on                   they can achieve HAP emissions
                                                                                                                    the top 6 percent of the best-performing
     THC, formaldehyde, and methanol                         reductions equal to or greater than 90
                                                                                                                    process units (i.e., the 94th percentile)
     because these three pollutants are the                  percent. These emissions reductions are
     most prevalent pollutants emitted from                  reported only for biofilters treating                  represents the MACT floor control level
     the PCWP industry and represent the                     emissions from presses at PCWP                         for that component of the sourcewide
     majority of the available data on control               facilities. No PCWP process units other                floor. For example, there are
     device performance. The design and                      than presses are currently using                       approximately 303 softwood veneer
     operating factors that affect a control                 biofilters to reduce air pollution. Both               dryers nationwide, and HAP emissions
     system’s ability to reduce emissions of                 incineration-based controls and                        from approximately 64 of these dryers
     formaldehyde, methanol, or THC are                      biofilters can achieve identical                       (21 percent nationwide) are controlled
     generally the same. For example, an                     formaldehyde and methanol emissions                    using incineration-based control
     RTO designed to reduce THC emissions                    reductions.                                            systems. The HAP emissions from the
     will also reduce formaldehyde or                                                                               remainder of the softwood veneer dryers
                                                             2. Ranking of Process Units                            are uncontrolled. In this example, the
     methanol emissions.
        Based on a review of the available                      We ranked the process units within                  94th percentile is represented by the
     control device performance data for the                 each process unit group according to the               control system applied to the softwood
     PCWP industry, we concluded that only                   HAP control devices that were applied.                 plywood dryer ranked at number 18 (18/
     two types of add-on air pollution                       Information on the number of process                   303 = 6 percent). However, incineration-
     control devices (APCD) consistently and                 units nationwide and the types of add-                 based controls are also used by
     continuously reduced HAP emissions:                     on control devices applied to process                  softwood veneer dryers ranked below
     incineration-based controls (including                  units was based primarily on responses                 the 94th percentile. Assuming that there
     RTOs, RCOs, and incineration of                         to a survey of the industry.                           are no significant design or operational
     pollutants in onsite process combustion                    When we ranked the process units,                   differences between the different types
     equipment used to control emissions                     we treated process units equipped with                 of incineration-based control systems
     from various PCWP process units) and                    any type of incineration-based control                 that would affect their performance, we
     biofilters (used to control PCWP press                  system or biofilters as being equivalent               would consider the incineration-based
     emissions). The control device                          with respect to their potential to reduce              control technologies as being equivalent
     efficiency data showed that APCD                        HAP emissions. We ranked the process                   for control of HAP emissions. Thus, all
     installed for particulate matter (PM)                   units by control device rather than                    of the softwood veneer dryers equipped
     abatement had no effect on gaseous HAP                  actual unit-specific emissions                         with incineration-based control systems
     or THC emissions. These APCD include                    reductions because we have limited                     would be representative of the MACT
     cyclones, multiclones (or                               inlet/outlet data on which to calculate                floor level of control for softwood
     multicyclones), baghouses (or fabric                    control efficiency. Based on available                 veneer dryers.
     filters), and electrified filter beds (EFB).            information (e.g., RTO operating
     The performance data for wet                            temperatures), we are not aware of any                    For those process unit groups where
     electrostatic precipitators (WESP) and                  significant design or operational                      there were fewer than 30 but at least five
     wet scrubbers installed for PM control                  differences among each type of control                 process units, such as hardboard ovens,
     also showed no effect on HAP and THC                    system evaluated that would affect the                 the emission level achievable by the
     emissions. These wet systems may                        ranking of process units. Furthermore,                 process unit and its control system that
     achieve short-term reductions in THC or                 we are not aware of factors other than                 is the median of the best-performing five
     gaseous HAP emissions, however, the                     the type of control system used that                   sources represents the MACT floor level
     HAP and THC control efficiency data,                    would significantly affect the ranking of              of control. For example, the MACT floor
     which range from slightly positive to                   process units.                                         level of control for fiberboard mat dryers
     negative values, indicate that the ability                                                                     is no emissions reductions because
     of these wet systems to absorb water-                   3. Identifying Control Technologies To                 there are ten fiberboard mat dryers
     soluble compounds (such as                              Establish the MACT Floor                               nationwide, and emissions from only
     formaldehyde) diminishes as the                            We established MACT floor control                   two of the ten fiberboard mat dryers are
     recirculating scrubbing liquid becomes                  levels by applying the floor procedures                controlled (both via incineration).
     saturated with these compounds.                         to similar process units. We believe that              Therefore, the top five fiberboard mat
        The performance data for the                         this approach results in the closest                   dryers include the two that are
     incineration-based controls and                         approximation of the true sourcewide                   controlled, plus three that are
     biofilters showed methanol and                          MACT floor.                                            uncontrolled. In this example, the


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00012   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                            1287

     median source (the fiberboard mat dryer                 on which we could base the MACT floor                  emissions. However, THC emissions
     ranked ‘‘number 3’’) is uncontrolled.                   level of performance.                                  data sometimes include methane which
        When a process unit group had fewer                    The reasons the available data are                   is neither a HAP nor a VOC. The THC
     than five process units, we determined                  incomplete are: Multiple emission                      emissions data also frequently include
     the appropriate control technology                      points are treated, inlet/outlet data are              other non-HAP compounds, such as
     based on the control technology used by                 limited, data among pollutants vary, and               terpenes, which are associated with
     the majority of the process units in the                pollutant loadings are variable. These                 processing of softwoods. We also
     process unit group.                                     are discussed below.                                   considered basing the control system
        For those process units not required                   Multiple emission points treated.                    performance level on HAP, measured as
     to meet the control requirements in                     Some of the control systems treat HAP                  total HAP, or methanol as a surrogate for
     today’s proposed rule, we determined                    emissions from multiple types of                       HAP, or formaldehyde as a surrogate for
     that: (1) The MACT floor level of control               process units, such as tube dryers,                    HAP. Methanol and formaldehyde are
     is no emissions reductions, and beyond                  reconstituted panel presses, and board                 the predominant HAP emitted from
     the floor control options are too costly                coolers. In those cases, separate                      PCWP process units, and they can be
     to be feasible; or (2) insufficient                     determinations of the performance of                   measured directly. However, not all
                                                             the control system on emissions from                   process units emit formaldehyde at
     information is available to conclude that
                                                             each type of process unit were not                     detectable levels, and not all process
     the MACT floor level of control is
                                                             possible.                                              units emit methanol at detectable levels,
     represented by any emissions                              Limited inlet/outlet data. Limited or
     reductions (miscellaneous coating                                                                              so basing the performance level only on
                                                             no inlet/outlet data were available for                methanol or only on formaldehyde was
     operations and wastewater operations).                  the control systems applied to the
     We are requesting comment on whether                                                                           not possible. For process units where
                                                             process units in each group.                           both the methanol and formaldehyde
     no emissions reductions for                               Variability in data among pollutants.
     miscellaneous coating operations and                                                                           emissions are low, THC emissions may
                                                             In some cases, it was not possible to
     for wastewater operations is                                                                                   be the only viable option for defining
                                                             directly compare the performance of
     appropriate. Commenters should submit                                                                          the control system performance. We
                                                             different control systems because data
     any information they have on HAP or                                                                            rejected basing the control system
                                                             were not available for the same
     VOC emissions from miscellaneous                                                                               performance level on total HAP
                                                             pollutant. For example, for one RTO, we
     coatings and wastewater operations.                     might only have THC emissions data,                    emissions because it seemed overly
                                                             and for another RTO, we might only                     burdensome to require testing of
     4. Determining the Performance Level of                                                                        multiple pollutants at the outlet of a
     MACT Floor Technologies                                 have formaldehyde data.
                                                               Variability in pollutant loadings. Our               control device when testing of one
       Using the procedures described                        ability to compare the performance of                  dominant pollutant would be sufficient
     above, we determined that the proposed                  the different types of incineration-based              for determining control device
     MACT floor level of control for process                 control systems with each other and                    performance. Furthermore, the total
     units was either no emissions                           with biofilters was also hampered by the               HAP control efficiency could be
     reductions or equivalent to the                         fact that the uncontrolled emissions                   negatively affected by those
     emissions reductions achieved by                        being treated by the different control                 measurements for HAP not detected at
     incineration-based control systems or                   systems varied with respect to pollutant               either the inlet or outlet of the control
     biofilters. Although some process units                 loading (inlet concentration) and                      device (e.g., the method detection limit
     are equipped with add-on controls that                  pollutant type. For example, the                       used in the calculation of total HAP
     perform at a level somewhere between                    available THC concentration data for the               control efficiency may be slightly higher
     zero emissions reductions and the                       inlet of the control systems ranged from               at the inlet than the outlet resulting in
     performance level achievable with                       as low as 45 ppmvd to as high as 5,100                 decreased total HAP control efficiency).
     incineration-based controls and                         ppmvd. With the exception of some                         Another consideration in determining
     biofilters, none of these control systems               control systems with lower pollutant                   the performance level that represents
     were identified as MACT floor control                   inlet concentrations, the available data               the MACT floor level of control is the
     technologies because they either do not                 for incineration-based controls and                    format of this performance level (e.g.,
     reduce organic HAP emissions (bag                       biofilters show that these control                     percent reduction, outlet concentration
     houses) or do so on an inconsistent and                 systems can achieve THC, methanol or                   level). In general, applying an
     unreliable basis (wet electrostatic                     formaldehyde emissions reductions                      incineration-based MACT control
     precipitators). Therefore, we focused                   greater than or equal to 90 percent.                   system to a process unit that emits high
     our analysis on incineration-based                        We considered basing the control                     concentrations of HAP and THC will
     controls and biofilters.                                system performance level on just one                   result in a greater percentage of
       For the purpose of establishing the                   pollutant, such as THC as a surrogate for              emissions reductions than if that same
     performance level of the MACT floor                     HAP. Many of the existing PCWP                         incineration-based MACT control
     control systems, we decided to group all                facilities with MACT control systems                   system was applied to a process unit
     of the available data on incineration-                  are already required to meet a specified               that emits lower concentrations of HAP
     based controls and biofilters together.                 VOC control efficiency, and these                      and THC. Therefore, a performance
     We grouped all the data together                        facilities generally measure THC                       level solely in the form of a percent
     because the available data for                          emissions as a surrogate for VOC                       reduction in emissions could not
     incineration-based controls is                          emissions. Source VOC mass emissions                   adequately characterize the performance
     incomplete. Without complete data, we                   (as required in new source review or                   level of the MACT floor control
     could not identify which were the best                  prevention of significant deterioration                technology. In similar MACT
     performing incinerators; therefore, we                  reviews and emission limits for VOC by                 rulemakings where incineration-based
     could not identify the top performing 12                definition) must be expressed on a mass                control technologies represent the
     percent. By considering all of the                      basis. This requires an adjustment for                 MACT floor, we have defined the
     performance data together, we                           other compounds, such as                               performance level of the incineration-
     maximized the amount of available data                  formaldehyde, to the measured THC                      based control technologies as either a


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00013   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1288                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     percent reduction or an outlet                          that is achievable under all                           F. How Did We Select the Format of the
     concentration, whichever is less                        circumstances within each particular                   Proposed Rule?
     stringent, with both forms being                        operation regulated by the proposed                      We decided to offer several formats
     considered equivalent to the other. We                  rule. For a few process units, the MACT                for complying with today’s proposed
     have recognized in these previous                       floor level of control for new units is                rule. The purpose of multiple formats is
     MACT rulemakings that there are                         more stringent than for existing units. In             to provide you the flexibility to comply
     practical limits to the ability of                      those cases, we determined the MACT                    in the most cost-effective and efficient
     incineration-based control systems to                   floor control level for existing process               manner. We considered the following
     treat more dilute emission streams. We                  units was no emissions reductions, and                 factors in selecting the format of the
     consider the practical limit of control of              that the MACT control level for new                    proposed rule:
     THC via incineration to be                              sources was represented by                               • The format should allow for
     approximately 20 ppmvd in the outlet of
                                                             incineration-based controls or biofilters.             multiple compliance techniques for the
     the control device.
        To account for the variability in the                                                                       various types of facilities in the
                                                             E. What Control Options Beyond the                     industry.
     type and amount of HAP in the                           MACT Floor Did We Consider?
     uncontrolled emissions from the various                                                                          • The format should simplify
     process units and the effect of this                       The control devices that represent the              compliance and ensure that the cost of
     variability on control system                           MACT floor control level achieve the                   compliance is not excessive.
     performance, we decided to base the                     greatest HAP emissions reductions of                     • The format must be enforceable.
     MACT floor performance level on all                                                                              The format of this proposed rule is
                                                             any available control technologies.
     three of the pollutants we analyzed and                                                                        based on a combination of production-
                                                             There are no controls that achieve
     include maximum concentration levels                                                                           based compliance options, percent
                                                             greater emissions reductions than the
     in the outlet of the control systems as an                                                                     emissions reduction compliance
                                                             MACT floor control level for process                   options, pollutant concentration
     alternative to emissions reductions. The                unit groups with MACT floor control
     MACT floor performance level is a 90                                                                           compliance options, and work practice
                                                             levels represented by incineration-based               requirements. We are also including
     percent reduction in THC or methanol                    controls or biofilters; therefore, we only
     or formaldehyde emissions. The                                                                                 emissions averaging as an option for
                                                             looked at beyond the floor options for                 complying with the proposed rule. The
     maximum concentration level in the                      process unit groups at existing sources
     outlet of the MACT floor control system                                                                        following subsections describe the
                                                             where the MACT floor level of control                  selection of the formats for each
     is 20 ppmvd for THC, or 1 ppmvd for                     was no emissions reductions. Process
     methanol, or 1 ppmvd for                                                                                       compliance option and work practice
                                                             units that were inherently lower-                      requirement included in the proposed
     formaldehyde. We chose 20 ppmvd as
                                                             emitting, such as sanding and sawing                   rule.
     the alternative maximum concentration
     for THC because 20 ppmvd represents                     operations, were excluded from the
                                                             beyond-the-floor analyses because                      1. Production-Based Compliance
     the practical limit of control for THC.                                                                        Options
     We chose 1 ppmvd as the maximum                         emissions from these process units
     outlet concentration for both methanol                  would not be cost effective to control.                   The production-based total HAP
     and formaldehyde because this                           Based on a review of the HAP emissions                 compliance options apply to process
     concentration is achievable by MACT                     data for process units where the MACT                  unit emissions prior to entering an add-
     control systems and the method                          floor level of control was determined to               on control system. This option allows
     detection limits for these compounds                    be no emissions reductions, we selected                for future pollution prevention
     using the NCASI impinger/canister                       blenders and stand-alone digesters for a               techniques and cost-effective control of
     method (NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–                         beyond-the-floor analysis because these                inherently lower-emitting process units.
     99.01, proposed to be incorporated by                   process units emit higher levels of HAP                The production-based compliance
     reference in today’s proposed rule) are                 emissions relative to other process                    options were determined by applying a
     less than 1 ppmvd. Based on the                         units. We also conducted beyond-the-                   90 percent reduction to the highest total
     available data for MACT control                         floor analyses for three process unit                  HAP test for each type of process unit
     systems, these six emission levels for                  groups with no emissions reductions at                 with a controlled MACT floor. A 90
     add-on control systems are considered                   the MACT floor control level for                       percent reduction was selected because
     equivalent options for defining the                                                                            it is equivalent to the emissions
                                                             existing sources but requiring control
     performance level of a MACT control                                                                            reductions achievable through the use of
                                                             for new sources. These process units
     system.                                                                                                        MACT. The 90 percent reduction was
                                                             included fiberboard mat dryers, press
                                                                                                                    applied to the highest tests rather than
     D. How Did We Determine the MACT                        predryers, and board coolers. We                       the average emission factors because the
     Floor for New Sources?                                  determined that the environmental                      production-based options calculated
        For new sources, the CAA requires                    benefits of requiring controls for these               using the highest tests more closely
     the MACT floor to be based on the                       process units did not justify the cost.                correlate with actual emissions from
     degree of emissions reductions achieved                 Moreover, many of the existing control                 process units with MACT control
     in practice by the best-controlled similar              devices at well-controlled facilities                  systems. If the average emission factors
     source. We believe for most process unit                would not have the additional capacity                 were used in the calculation of the
     groups that the existing source MACT                    to treat the emissions from these process              production-based compliance options,
     floor control level also represents the                 units, and thus, these facilities would                some of the process units with MACT
     level of control appropriate for new                    have to install new controls. Therefore,               control systems would not be capable of
     sources because the same types of                       we decided that the control level for                  meeting those options. Use of statistical
     emission control systems, such as                       blenders, stand-alone digesters,                       methods for predicting the highest test
     thermal oxidizers and biofilters, are                   fiberboard mat dryers, press predryers,                value likely to be observed for each
     used. In these cases, the existing source               and board coolers should be no                         process unit was also considered.
     MACT floor technology represents the                    emissions reductions at existing                       However, the available total HAP test
     greatest degree of emissions reductions                 sources.                                               data sets are too small to justify use of


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00014   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                               1289

     such statistical methods, and the                       ppmvd restriction does not apply to the                final HON (59 FR 19425, April 22,
     resulting compliance options, in many                   percent reduction compliance options.                  1994). The rationale for including
     cases, seemed unreasonably high                                                                                certain limitations and requirements as
                                                             3. Emissions Averaging Compliance
     compared to the actual emissions from                                                                          part of today’s emissions averaging
                                                             Option
     process units with MACT control                                                                                provisions follows the HON and is
     systems. Therefore, statistical methods                    Today’s proposed rule includes an                   summarized below.
     were not used. We based the                             emissions averaging compliance option                     Emission points allowed in emissions
     production-based compliance options                     because we believe that emissions                      averaging. Only those emission points
     on total HAP emissions, as defined in                   averaging represents an equivalent,                    (process units) that are part of the
     today’s proposed rule, because of the                   more flexible, and less costly alternative             affected source (PCWP manufacturing
     variability in uncontrolled HAP                         to controlling certain emission points to              facility), as defined in today’s proposed
     emissions within and among the                          MACT floor levels. Prior to an industry-               rule, can be included in an emissions
     different types of process units. Total                 sponsored emissions test program                       average. Therefore, a PCWP facility
     HAP emissions varied less than the                      carried out by NCASI, the majority of                  collocated with a pulp and paper mill,
     emissions of individual HAP and the                     the available emissions test data for the              for example, cannot include emission
     emissions of THC.                                       PCWP industry was limited to THC and                   points in the pulp and paper mill as part
                                                             formaldehyde emissions data for dryers                 of the emissions average.
     2. Add-On Control System Compliance                     and presses. The industry-sponsored                       Today’s proposed rule also excludes
     Options                                                 test program provided speciated HAP                    new affected sources from the proposed
        The six compliance options for add-                  emissions data for a variety of process                emissions averaging provisions. Today’s
     on control systems in today’s proposed                  units at 29 different PCWP plants. For                 proposed rule defines affected sources
     rule are based on the performance of                    some of these previously untested                      broadly, such that a new source is
     incineration-based control systems and                  process units, the NCASI data represent                essentially a whole new ‘‘green field’’
     biofilters. We included two formats in                  the only available HAP emissions data                  mill. Therefore, not allowing emissions
     these compliance options: Emissions                     for those sources. A few of these process              averaging at new sources does not affect
     reductions (percent) and maximum                        units, such as blenders, may emit                      existing sources’ ability to use emissions
     outlet pollutant concentrations. Many of                quantities of HAP equal to or greater                  averaging. New sources have
     the well-controlled facilities are already              than the quantities emitted from some                  historically been held to a stricter
     subject to permit limits that are in the                types of dryers and presses. In addition               standard than existing sources because
     form of a percent reduction in                          to emitting more HAP, these other types                it is most cost effective to integrate state-
     emissions. Therefore, we expect that                    of process units often have a lower                    of-the-art controls into equipment
     some of those facilities may choose to                  volume of exhaust gas to be treated                    design and to install the technology
     comply with an emissions reduction                      compared to dryers and presses. The                    during construction of new sources. One
     option. We are also including outlet                    combination of higher pollutant                        reason we allow emissions averaging is
     concentration options so that sources                   concentrations and lower exhaust gas                   to give existing sources flexibility to
     that have lower inlet pollutant                         flow rates may make these other process                achieve compliance at diverse points
     concentrations (and thus, have lesser                   units more cost effective to control.                  with varying degrees of control already
     ability to achieve higher emissions                     However, very few PCWP facilities have                 in place in the most cost-effective and
     reductions) can demonstrate                             installed emission control devices on                  technically reasonable fashion. This
     compliance. We consider the emissions                   process units other than dryers and                    concern does not apply to new sources
     reduction options and the outlet                        presses. Therefore, when determining                   which can be designed and constructed
     concentration options to be equivalent                  the MACT floors for existing process                   with compliance in mind.
     limits. We are not requiring an oxygen                  units, the process units most likely to                   Today’s proposed rule also excludes
     correction to the outlet concentration                  have controlled MACT floors have been                  from emissions averaging any process
     options because most of our outlet                      dryers and presses, with some                          units equipped with emission control
     concentration data were measured at                     exceptions. Most other types of process                systems that were installed to comply
     ambient oxygen levels due to the                        units are largely uncontrolled                         with a State or Federal rule or statute
     relatively dilute emission streams being                throughout the industry and based on                   (other than today’s proposed rule). We
     treated. Dilution to achieve compliance                 our MACT analysis, we did not include                  are including this restriction because
     with the proposed PCWP rule is                          existing source control requirements for               credits for controls applied to comply
     prohibited by 40 CFR 63.4.                              these process units in today’s proposed                with another rule increase your ability
        We are restricting the use of the                    rule. Therefore, emissions from these                  to generate credits, but do not generate
     formaldehyde and methanol                               other types of process units at existing               any new emissions reductions, thus
     concentration-based options to only                     sources would not be controlled under                  creating more emissions. However, if a
     those sources with formaldehyde or                      the point-by-point compliance options                  process unit in your approved EAP used
     methanol emissions entering the control                 in today’s proposed rule. By allowing                  to generate emission credits later
     device that are greater than 10 ppmvd.                  emissions averaging across the affected                becomes subject to a State or Federal
     We have included this restriction to                    source, which is broadly defined in                    rule other than the proposed PCWP rule,
     prevent circumvention of the proposed                   today’s proposed rule, sources can                     the process unit can continue to
     standards. For example, if a process unit               achieve the same environmental gains                   generate credits in the approved plan.
     emits primarily formaldehyde and only                   as point-by-point compliance, but at                   Work practice requirements are
     a very small amount of methanol                         reduced cost.                                          excluded from emissions averaging
     (slightly less than 1 ppmvd), without                      The emissions averaging provisions in               because, by definition, the level of
     the 10 ppmvd restriction, you could                     today’s proposed rule are based in part                emissions reduction achieved by
     demonstrate compliance with the 1                       on the emissions averaging provisions                  compliance with those requirements is
     ppmvd methanol concentration option                     in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP                        not sufficiently quantifiable.
     without using a control system or using                 (HON). The legal basis and rationale for                  Limits on credit for control
     a control system that does not reduce                   the HON emissions averaging provisions                 efficiencies. The proposed emissions
     HAP, such as a baghouse. The 10                         were provided in the preamble to the                   averaging provisions limit the value of


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00015   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1290                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     the control system efficiency (CDi) to 90               should be shared between industry and                  combination thereof * * *’’ Section
     percent in the equation for calculating                 the environment. For the HON, we                       112(h)(2) further defines the phrase ‘‘not
     the AMR of total HAP from all process                   decided that it was appropriate that                   feasible to prescribe or enforce an
     units generating credits. No credit above               industry share any cost savings realized               emission standard’’ as any situation in
     90 percent is allowed.                                  from emissions averaging and included                  which ‘‘* * * a hazardous air pollutant
        Differences from the HON emissions                   a discount factor because the costs of                 or pollutants cannot be emitted through
     averaging approach. Some aspects of                     controlling different emission points                  a conveyance designed and constructed
     the HON emissions averaging approach                    could vary significantly. The HON                      to emit or capture such pollutant, * * *
     have not been included in the proposed                  proposal preamble also discussed the                   or the application of measurement
     PCWP rule. Specifically, today’s                        level of uncertainty in estimating                     methodology to a particular class of
     proposed rule does not limit the number                 emissions reductions that may result                   sources is not practicable * * *’’
     of emission points allowed in an                        from facilities using emissions                           Today’s proposed rule includes work
     emissions average, does not require a                   averaging. For the HON, the uncertainty                practice requirements for softwood
     hazard or risk analysis, and does not                   arose from differing accuracies available              veneer dryers, dry rotary dryers,
     include a discount factor. The HON                      for estimating emissions from the                      hardwood veneer dryers, and veneer
     limited the number of emission points                   number of emission points at a HON                     redryers. The proposed work practice
     that could be used in an emissions                      facility, the number of HAP emitted                    requirements for softwood veneer dryers
     average because of significant                          from HON facilities, and the different                 include a requirement to minimize
     enforcement concerns. The HON                           types of emission points.                              fugitive emissions from the veneer dryer
     sources have many emission points, are                     The PCWP industry differs in almost                 doors and the green end of the dryer. It
     complex and diverse, and as a result are                every relevant factor from the HON.                    is not practical for sources to measure
     subject to a more complex set of                        First, HON facilities can cover several                the fugitive emissions from the
     emissions averaging provisions. The                     square miles and some emission points,                 softwood veneer dryers; therefore, in
     PCWP facilities have fewer emission                     such as storage vessels, could be some                 lieu of establishing an emission limit for
     points within each facility. Therefore,                 distance from other emission points                    fugitive emissions, we are proposing
     the enforcement concerns arising due to                 making them relatively costly to control.              that sources develop a plan for
     the large number of emission points in                  Second, as discussed previously, the                   minimizing these emissions and keep
     each HON facility are minimized for                     number of points that might be included                records to document they are following
     PCWP facilities. As a result, we believe                in an emissions average at a PWCP                      their plan.
     a simpler set of emissions averaging                    facility is fewer than could be included                  For dry rotary dryers, hardwood
     provisions is appropriate for PCWP                      in a HON average and, therefore, less of               veneer dryers, and veneer redryers, the
     facilities, and the limitation on the                   a concern. Third, the magnitude of                     proposed work practice requirements
     number of points available for averaging                emissions from HON emission points is                  would establish limits on how these
     was not included in the proposed rule.                  typically much greater than the                        process units are operated and the types
        The HON requires a hazard and risk                   emissions from PCWP emission points.                   of materials processed in these units.
     study for emission points included in an                Fourth, there are six HAP of primary                   The MACT floors for dry rotary dryers,
     emissions average largely because of the                concern emitted from PCWP facilities                   hardwood veneer dryers and veneer
     many pollutants and many emission                       compared to over 140 HAP emitted from                  redryers are all equivalent to no
     points at the source. The PCWP                          HON facilities. Fifth, the kinds of                    emissions reductions because none of
     facilities have fewer pollutants of                     emission points found at PCWP                          these process units have add-on control
     concern and are likely to have similar                  facilities are much more similar than                  devices. The emissions from these three
     HAP emissions from the emission                         those regulated by the HON and,                        types of process units are relatively low
     points that would be used to generate                   therefore, unlikely to introduce                       compared to the emissions from other
     debits and credits. Thus, we believe that               additional uncertainty.                                PCWP process units subject to today’s
     averages will achieve a comparable                         We believe the inclusion of emissions               proposed rule. However, if these three
     hazard/risk benefit as point-by-point                   averaging into rules and the decision on               types of process units were operated in
     compliance. Although States would still                 how to design an emission averaging                    a manner that was inconsistent with
     have the discretion to require a PCWP                   approach for a particular source                       how they are defined in today’s
     facility that requested approval of an                  category must be evaluated for each                    proposed rule, the emissions from these
     emissions average to conduct a hazard                   source category. Although the HON and                  process units could increase.
     and risk study (or preclude the facility                the proposed PCWP rule share the same                     For example, a green rotary dryer,
     from using emissions averaging                          legal basis for including emission                     which has proposed compliance options
     altogether), the proposed rule does not                 averaging as a compliance option and                   in today’s proposed rule, is essentially
     require a hazard or risk study.                         the same basic system of credits and                   the same in terms of equipment as a dry
        The HON requires a discount factor of                debits, some of the restrictions                       rotary dryer. However, a dry rotary
     10 percent in credit calculations to                    reasonable for the HON emissions                       dryer emits much less HAP than a green
     share with the environment some                         averaging provisions are unnecessary for               rotary dryer because it dries wood
     portion of the cost savings due to                      the proposed PCWP rule.                                particles that have been previously
     emissions averaging and to account for                                                                         dried to some extent; thus, much of the
     uncertainty in emissions estimation.                    4. Work Practice Requirements                          HAP present in the wood has already
     Due to differences between PCWP and                        Section 112(h) of the CAA states that               been released. The dry rotary dryers also
     HON sources (discussed below), we do                    ‘‘* * * if it is not feasible in the                   operate at lower temperatures, which
     not believe it is necessary for the                     judgement of the Administrator to                      further reduces the amount of HAP
     proposed PCWP rule to include a                         prescribe or enforce an emission                       emitted. Therefore, the operation of the
     discount factor.                                        standard for control of a hazardous air                rotary dryer, and not the equipment
        The HON proposal preamble (57 FR                     pollutant or pollutants, the                           design, determines whether it is
     62652, December 31, 1992) and the                       Administrator may, in lieu thereof,                    classified as a green or dry rotary dryer.
     HON final preamble discuss how cost                     promulgate a design, equipment, work                   Because the dry rotary dryers, veneer
     savings due to emissions averaging                      practice, or operational standard, or                  redryers and hardwood veneer dryers


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00016   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                            1291

     are defined and classified based on how                 to reduce VOC emissions, these                         Industries) to measure formaldehyde
     they are operated, and we made MACT                     facilities generally are allowed to                    emissions. Although EPA Method 0011
     floor determinations based on those                     subtract methane emissions from the                    has not been validated for use in the
     classifications, we believe that                        THC measurement when reporting VOC                     PCWP industry, it predates the NCASI
     proposing work practice requirements                    emissions because methane is not a                     methods and EPA Method 320 and is
     (such as continuously monitoring dryer                  VOC, according to EPA’s definition of                  frequently used to measure
     temperature and wood moisture                           VOC. Therefore, we also would allow                    formaldehyde emissions from PCWP
     content) that ensure that these process                 you to subtract methane emissions from                 process units. A comparison of
     units continuously operate as defined in                measured THC values using EPA                          formaldehyde measurements made
     today’s proposed rule is more                           Method 18 (Measurement of Gaseous                      using the NCASI methods and EPA
     appropriate than proposing compliance                   Organic Compound Emissions by Gas                      Method 0011 showed no significant
     options for these process units.                        Chromotography). Method 18 is a self-                  differences (see Docket number A–98–
                                                             validating method.                                     44); therefore, we would allow you to
     G. How Did We Select the Test Methods                      We are proposing the use of the
     for Determining Compliance With the                                                                            use EPA Method 0011 as an alternative
                                                             NCASI Method (NCASI Method CI/WP–                      to the NCASI Methods for measuring
     Proposed Rule?                                          98.01, Chilled Impinger Method for Use                 formaldehyde. Although EPA Method
        Today’s proposed rule would require                  at Wood Products Mills to Measure                      316 has not been validated for testing of
     you to conduct performance tests to                     Formaldehyde, Methanol, and Phenol,                    PCWP process units, it is a relatively
     demonstrate compliance with the                         1998) for measuring methanol or                        new method for measuring
     production-based compliance options,                    formaldehyde. We are also proposing                    formaldehyde concentrations as low as
     compliance options for add-on control                   the NCASI Chilled Impinger Canister                    11 parts per billion. Therefore, it is
     devices, and the emissions averaging                    Method (NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–                        included as an alternative to the other
     alternative. Depending upon which                       99.01) for measuring total HAP                         test methods for formaldehyde in
     compliance option you use, you would                    emissions. Total HAP emissions are                     today’s proposed rule.
     be required to measure emissions of                     defined, for purposes of today’s
     methanol, formaldehyde, THC, or total                                                                             We are proposing the use of EPA
                                                             proposed rule, as the sum of the
     HAP. When determining compliance                                                                               Method 204 (Criteria for and
                                                             emissions of acetaldehyde, acrolein,
     with compliance options for presses and                                                                        Verification of Permanent or Temporary
                                                             formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and
     board coolers, you also would be                                                                               Total Enclosure) and Methods 204A
                                                             propionaldehyde. The NCASI Chilled
     required to determine the capture                       Impinger Method (NCASI Method CI/                      through 204F for determining the
     efficiency of the enclosures for those                  WP–98.01), which we are proposing to                   capture efficiency of enclosures.
     presses and board coolers that have                     incorporate by reference, has been                     Methods 204A through 204F include the
     enclosures that do not qualify as PTE.                  validated (using EPA Method 301                        following: Method 204A—Volatile
     For presses and board coolers that have                 criteria) for measuring formaldehyde,                  Organic Compounds Content In Liquids
     partial enclosures or no enclosures, you                methanol, and phenol from dryers and                   Input Stream; Method 204B—Volatile
     must determine the capture efficiency of                press vents at PCWP facilities. The                    Organic Compounds Emissions In
     the emissions capture device by                         NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–99.01,                          Captured Stream; Method 204C—
     installing a TTE as described in EPA                    which we are proposing to incorporate                  Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions
     Method 204 or using the tracer gas                      by reference (pending EPA review of the                In Captured Stream (Dilution
     method as described in Appendix A to                    method), is a self-validating method that              Technique); Method 204D—Volatile
     today’s proposed rule. The test methods                 can be used to measure numerous HAP                    Organic Compounds Emissions In
     you would have to use to measure these                  compounds.                                             Uncaptured Stream From Temporary
     pollutants and capture efficiency are                      As an alternative to the NCASI                      Total Enclosure; Method 204E—Volatile
     discussed below.                                        methods, we are proposing use of other                 Organic Compounds Emissions In
        We are proposing the use of EPA                      applicable EPA test methods in order to                Uncaptured Stream From Building
     Method 25A (Determination of Total                      increase the flexibility of the proposed               Enclosure; and Method 204F—Volatile
     Gaseous Organic Matter Concentration                    rule. You could use EPA Method 320                     Organic Compounds Content In Liquid
     Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer) for                  (Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic                    Input Stream (Distillation Approach). If
     measuring THC emissions because most                    and Inorganic Emission by Extractive                   the enclosure meets the definition and
     of the PCWP facilities that are already                 FTIR) to measure emissions of                          criteria in EPA Method 204 for a PTE,
     required to measure THC emissions use                   methanol, formaldehyde and total HAP.                  then you may assume that its capture
     this method. Also, most of the available                Method 320 is a self-validating method                 efficiency is 100 percent. If the
     emissions data that we used to establish                that uses Fourier transform infrared                   enclosure is not a PTE, then you would
     THC control efficiencies for the various                (FTIR) spectroscopy. You could also use                have to build a total temporary
     control systems were measured using                     EPA Method 308 (Procedure for                          enclosure (TTE) around the process unit
     Method 25A and reported on an ‘‘as                      Determination of Methanol Emission                     that meets the definition of a TTE in
     carbon’’ basis. Method 25A is better                    from Stationary Sources) for measuring                 EPA Method 204, and you would be
     suited than EPA Method 25                               emissions of methanol. Method 308                      required to determine the capture
     (Measurement of Total Gaseous                           predates the NCASI Chilled Impinger                    efficiency of the TTE using Methods
     Nonmethane Organic Emissions as                         Method and the NCASI Impinger                          204A through 204F (as appropriate).
     Carbon (TGNMO)) for measuring                           Canister Method and has been used to                   You would then have to measure
     emission streams from PCWP process                      test PCWP emission sources in the past.                emissions from both the control device
     units which typically have lower THC                    You could use EPA Method 0011                          (if applicable) and the TTE and use the
     concentrations (e.g., less than 50 ppm)                 (Sampling for Selected Aldehyde and                    combined emissions to determine
     and relatively high moisture contents.                  Ketone Emissions from Stationary                       compliance. If the process unit is
     However, unlike Method 25, Method                       Sources) or EPA Method 316 (Sampling                   uncontrolled, you would have to use the
     25A does measure methane as a THC.                      and Analysis for Formaldehyde                          capture efficiency of the TTE in
     Because many of the well-controlled                     Emissions from Stationary Sources in                   determining the uncontrolled emissions
     PCWP facilities are required by permit                  the Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass                   from the process unit.


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00017   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1292                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

        Industry representatives have                        PCWP plants. The proposed monitoring                   input capacity that accept process
     expressed concern with using EPA                        requirements we selected pertain to the                exhausts into the flame zone.
     Methods 204 and 204A through F for                      operating requirements for control                        For catalytic oxidizers, we would
     determining capture efficiency of press                 devices and the work practice                          require monitoring of the temperature at
     enclosures. The industry representatives                requirements for various dryers.                       the inlet of the catalyst bed. The rate at
     have indicated that some facilities may                   The proposed recordkeeping                           which pollutants in the exhaust stream
     have difficulty retrofitting a PTE or TTE               requirements include submitting a copy                 are oxidized on the catalyst is greatly
     that meets the EPA Method 204 criteria.                 of each notification and report, as well               affected by temperature, as well as other
     Partial enclosures may be able to                       as documentation supporting any Initial                parameters (such as residence time and
     achieve high capture. We recognize the                  Notification or Notification of                        turbulence) that are fixed by the design
     need for flexibility in determining                     Compliance Status, according to the                    of the catalytic oxidizer. Monitoring of
     capture efficiency for PCWP press                       requirements in § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv). You                the inlet temperature to the catalytic
     enclosures and, therefore, as an                        would also have to keep the records                    oxidizer helps to ensure that the system
     alternative to Methods 204 and 204A                     specified in § 63.6(e)(3) related to                   is operating as designed with a
     through F, we are working with PCWP                     startup, shutdown, and malfunction                     temperature high enough to oxidize the
     industry representatives to develop and                 (SSM), records of performance tests, as                pollutants. As for thermal oxidizers, we
     propose a tracer gas procedure that may                 required in § 63.7(g)(1), and records for              also would require you to monitor the
     be used to determine the capture                        each continuous monitoring system                      static pressure at the inlet of the
     efficiency of PCWP press partial                        (CMS), including CPMS or CEMS. The                     catalytic oxidizer or stack gas flow rate.
     enclosures. This alternative tracer gas                 records for the CMS would include                         If you operate a thermal oxidizer or
     procedure is provided as Appendix A to                  records of the applicable operating                    catalytic oxidizer, you would be
     today’s proposed rule. This procedure                   requirements and monitoring data                       required to calculate and record 3-hour
     would be applicable for determination                   required in today’s proposed rule. You                 block averages of the operating
     of capture efficiency for press                         also would have to keep records to                     parameter values. We selected the 3-
     enclosures that are not considered to be                demonstrate compliance with any work                   hour averaging time because the initial
     PTE as defined in EPA Method 204, and                   practice requirements that apply to you.               performance test provisions in today’s
     the procedure is proposed as an                           How we selected the specific                         proposed rule require you to perform a
     alternative to the construction of TTE.                 proposed monitoring and recordkeeping                  minimum of three 1-hour test runs, and
     Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is used as a                  requirements is discussed in the                       the control device operating
     tracer gas. This gas is not indigenous to               following subsections.                                 requirements would be based on the
     the ambient atmosphere and is                                                                                  average values obtained using all test
                                                             1. Control Device Parameter Monitoring
     nonreactive. The alternative tracer gas                                                                        data obtained during the performance
                                                             and Recordkeeping Requirements
     procedure provided as Appendix A to                                                                            test. Each 3-hour average parameter
     today’s proposed rule is a ‘‘work in                       According to today’s proposed rule,                 value must remain within the level
     progress.’’ Industry representatives are                you would have the option of either                    established during the performance test
     testing the tracer gas procedure and are                monitoring control device operating                    in order for you to demonstrate
     expected to provide data and feedback                   parameters or operating a THC CEMS at                  continuous compliance with the
     that may be used in revising the                        the control device outlet to demonstrate               operating requirement.
     procedure if necessary. Discussions                     continuous compliance with the                            The proposed operating parameters
     with industry representatives regarding                 operating requirements. The operating                  for biofilters are based on information
     development of the proposed alternative                 parameters for thermal oxidizers,                      about parameters currently monitored
     tracer gas procedure are documented in                  catalytic oxidizers, and biofilters were               for biofilters operated in the PCWP
     Docket A–98–44. We welcome your                         selected based on information from the                 industry and on information supplied
     comments on the proposed alternative                    questionnaire responses and                            by a biofilter vendor. For biofilters, you
     tracer gas procedure. We also welcome                   information from other source categories               would be required to monitor the
     your comments on additional                             regarding the parameters that are                      following parameters to demonstrate
     approaches for determining capture                      currently used as reliable indicators of               continuous compliance: (1)
     efficiency, such as the use of                          control device performance.                            Temperature of the air stream entering
     computational fluid dynamics (CFD)                         For thermal oxidizers, we would                     the biofilter, (2) pressure drop across the
     models or other methods that would                      require monitoring for the temperature                 media bed, and (3) pH of the effluent.
     meet the data quality objective (DQO) or                in the firebox or in the ductwork                      Monitoring temperature and pH help
     lower confidence limit (LCL) statistical                immediately downstream of the firebox.                 determine the health of the
     criteria outlined in Appendix A to                      A sufficiently high temperature in the                 microorganism population. Extremes in
     subpart KK of 40 CFR part 63 (National                  firebox helps to ensure complete                       either temperature or pH can slow or
     Emission Standards for the Printing and                 combustion of pollutants. We also                      halt microbial activity. Monitoring the
     Publishing Industry). Today’s proposed                  would require you to monitor the static                pressure drop across the biofilter can
     rule would allow facilities to petition                 pressure at the inlet of the thermal                   alert the operator to problems such as
     the Administrator for use of alternative                oxidizer as an indicator of capture                    plugging or drying of the bed media.
     test methods.                                           efficiency and the process unit exhaust                Because factors that affect the
                                                             flow rate entering the thermal oxidizer.               performance of biofilters and biofilter
     H. How Did We Select the Monitoring                     You may monitor gas flow rate at the                   monitoring methods can be site specific,
     and Recordkeeping Requirements?                         thermal oxidizer stack as an alternative               you would be allowed to establish your
       We are proposing monitoring and                       to monitoring static pressure.                         biofilter operating parameter
     recordkeeping requirements based on a                   Monitoring of gas flow or static pressure              requirements and their corresponding
     combination of general monitoring and                   can alert the operator to problems such                monitoring methods, monitoring
     recordkeeping requirements in the                       as plugging of the thermal oxidizer.                   frequencies, and averaging times based
     NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR                       Parameter monitoring would not be                      on historical biofilter operating records.
     part 63, subpart A) and specific                        required for combustion units with                     We allow the use of historical records in
     monitoring methods already in use at                    greater than or equal to 44 MW heat                    setting the biofilter parameter limits


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00018   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                            1293

     because establishing limits during a 3-                 presses, fiberboard mat dryer hot zones,               demonstrate continuous compliance
     hour performance test may not                           and softwood veneer dryer hot zones.                   with the operating requirements is
     adequately identify acceptable operating                You would not be required to monitor                   appropriate. If you choose to do so, you
     ranges for biofilter parameters. Some                   process parameters for reconstituted                   may subtract methane from the THC
     facilities in the PCWP industry have                    wood product board coolers or                          concentration measured with your THC
     been operating biofilters for years, and                pressurized refiners. We request                       CEMS (e.g., by using a CEMS that
     these facilities have learned through                   comment on whether the temperature                     measures TGNMO).
     experience the most appropriate                         parameters are appropriate for                           Control device maintenance
     monitoring methods, monitoring                          monitoring to show compliance with                     requirements vary significantly from
     frequencies, and optimal operating                      the production-based compliance                        facility to facility. Although we believe
     ranges for their biofilters. Because                    options. The production-based                          that most of the maintenance activities
     historical biofilter operating records                  compliance options were developed for                  can be accomplished during scheduled
     may not be available for some biofilters                inherently low-emitting process units or               facilitywide or partial shutdowns, we
     (such as new biofilter installations),                  process units using pollution                          recognize that some facilities may need
     today’s proposed rule would allow up to                 prevention. We believe that process unit               to perform more maintenance on their
     180 days following the compliance date                  HAP emissions are somewhat                             control systems than other facilities due
     for the necessary operating data to be                  dependent on dryer or press                            to site-specific factors, such as the
     gathered for use in setting parameter                   temperature; however, other factors                    nature and quantity of particulate
     requirements. To ensure compliance, all                 such as resin HAP content and percent                  entering an RTO or the ability of an RTO
     historical operating data used to                       of furnish that enters the plant already               to perform online bakeouts (a feature
     establish the operating parameter limits                dried may also affect HAP emissions. It                often incorporated into newer RTO
     must be accompanied by performance                      is not clear what pollution prevention                 designs).
     test data for the same time period that                 techniques will be used to comply with                   The most widely used add-on control
     show that the biofilter was meeting the                 the production-based compliance                        systems at PCWP facilities are RTO,
     emission limits in today’s proposed                     options (partly because pollution                      RCO, and biofilters. As with any control
     rule, and that the data were collected                  prevention measures are expected to                    device in any industry, these control
     using the test methods in today’s                       evolve in the future), therefore, we                   devices require routine maintenance.
     proposed rule. In addition, you would                   request your feedback on how facilities                Routine maintenance includes activities
     have to certify that no modifications                   that will use pollution prevention could               such as cleaning or replacement of
     have been made to the biofilter or                      show continuous compliance with the                    corroded parts, media replacement,
     associated process unit(s) subsequent to                production-based compliance options.                   bakeouts (RTO and RCO), washouts
     the date the historical data were                                                                              (RTO and RCO), and cleaning of ducts.
                                                                Instead of monitoring process or                    Some PCWP drying processes release
     collected. Because there are only a few
                                                             control system operating parameters for                particulates and salts that can plug and
     biofilters operating in the PCWP
                                                             thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers,                weaken RTO and RCO media beds.
     industry and we have limited
                                                             biofilters, or other control systems, you              Frequent bakeouts and washouts are
     information on how changes in biofilter
     operating parameters affect biofilter                   could choose to monitor THC                            necessary to combat the particulate and
     performance, we welcome your                            concentration with a CEMS at the                       salt buildup. Partial or total media
     comments on these proposed                              control device outlet to show                          replacement is done when bakeouts and
     monitoring requirements for biofilters.                 compliance with the operating                          washouts are no longer effective.
        If you operate a control device other                requirements. If you use a THC CEMS,                     Plywood and composite wood
     than a thermal oxidizer, catalytic                      you would be required to maintain the                  products industry representatives have
     oxidizer, or biofilter, you would be                    average THC concentration at the                       requested that today’s proposed rule
     required to petition the Administrator                  control device outlet below the                        include a downtime allowance that
     for site-specific operating parameters to               maximum THC concentration                              would allow process units to operate
     indicate proper operation and continued                 established during the performance test.               while the control device is offline for
     performance of the control device. You                  The purpose of monitoring THC                          routine maintenance. After considering
     would establish the operating parameter                 concentration is to show compliance                    the available data, we included in
     values during the performance test and                  with the operating requirements (as                    today’s proposed rule a routine control
     maintain the parameters within the                      opposed to the compliance options);                    device maintenance exemption. To
     range established during the                            thus, you could use the THC CEMS                       obtain the exemption, you must explain
     performance test. The Administrator                     instead of CPMS regardless of whether                  to the Administrator why you cannot
     would determine whether maximum                         you demonstrate compliance with the                    perform routine control device
     value, minimum value, or a range of                     THC, formaldehyde, methanol, or total                  maintenance during process shutdowns
     operating parameters is appropriate. The                HAP compliance options. For example,                   and describe how you plan to minimize
     Administrator would also determine the                  you could conduct a performance test to                emissions to the greatest extent possible
     appropriate averaging time for each                     show that you reduce formaldehyde by                   during the maintenance. The routine
     monitoring parameter for the control                    90 percent while simultaneously                        control device maintenance exemption
     device.                                                 operating the THC CEMS to determine                    may not exceed 3 percent of annual
        If you comply with the production-                   the maximum 3-hour block outlet THC                    operating uptime for each green rotary
     based compliance options, then you                      concentration that would become your                   dryer, tube dryer, strand dryer, or
     would be required to continuously                       parameter value representing your                      pressurized refiner controlled. The
     monitor a process operating parameter                   operating requirement. Generally, the                  routine control device maintenance
     (temperature). You would monitor dryer                  same parameters that affect control                    exemption is limited to 0.5 percent of
     inlet temperature for green rotary                      device formaldehyde, methanol, or total                annual operating uptime for each
     dryers, tube dryers, or strand dryers.                  HAP reduction efficiency also impact                   softwood veneer dryer, reconstituted
     You would monitor operating                             the THC reduction efficiency; thus, we                 wood product press, reconstituted wood
     temperature for hardboard ovens, press                  believe that allowing use of a THC                     product board cooler, hardboard oven,
     predryers, reconstituted wood product                   CEMS instead of a operating CPMS to                    press predryer, or fiberboard mat dryer


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00019   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1294                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     controlled. If your control device is used              operating conditions, and you would be                 the weight of water to the weight of dry
     to control a combination of equipment                   required to keep records of the hours of               wood, multiplied by 100.
     with different downtime allowances                      operation for these uncontrolled process                  The requirements for the continuous
     (e.g., a tube dryer and a press), then the              units.                                                 moisture sensor and the grab sample
     highest (i.e., 3 percent) downtime                                                                             requirement are specified in
                                                             3. Monitoring and Recordkeeping                        § 63.2268(f). We plan to add
     allowance applies. The maximum
                                                             Requirements for Dry Rotary Dryer                      performance specifications for the
     percentages of operating time allowed
                                                             Work Practice Requirements                             continuous moisture sensor to include
     for the routine control device
     maintenance exemption are based on                         Rotary dryers that meet the definition              such parameters as the amount of drift
     our independent analysis of data from                   of ‘‘dry rotary dryers’’ in today’s                    allowed. We request comment on drift
     an extensive control device downtime                    proposed rule would not be subject to                  and any other performance
     survey conducted by the PCWP                            the proposed control requirements.                     specifications that should be added to
     industry.                                               Green rotary dryers and dry rotary                     ensure moisture content is being
        We are requesting comment on the                     dryers are essentially the same in terms               measured accurately, to ensure
     appropriateness of including a routine                  of equipment design. The differences                   flexibility in the type of continuous
     control device maintenance exemption                    between the two types of dryers are                    moisture sensor that can be used by a
     in today’s proposed rule and whether or                 operational. Green rotary dryers are                   facility, and to ensure compliance and
     not the downtime allowance allotted is                  used to dry green furnish, and dry rotary              enforceability. We also plan to add
     appropriate as the maximum amount of                    dryers are used to dry furnish that has                specifications to the grab sample
     time per year for such an exemption.                    been previously dried. Green rotary                    requirements, such as including the
     Commenters should submit information                    dryers are defined as dryers that dry                  period of time a sample must maintain
     and data that support their comments                    wood particles that have a moisture                    a constant weight. We request comment
     such as detailed maintenance records                    content greater than 30 percent on a dry               on what this period of time should be
     and descriptions of the add-on control                  basis or operate at an inlet dryer                     and any other specifications that should
     systems, sources controlled by the                      temperature greater than 600° F.                       be added to ensure accurate and precise
     control system, and any particulate                     Conversely, dry rotary dryers dry wood                 results.
     removal devices that precede the control                particles that have a moisture content                    However, if you choose or are
     system.                                                 less than or equal to 30 percent on a dry              required by some other regulatory action
                                                             basis and operate at an inlet dryer                    to install a control device designed to
     2. Monitoring and Recordkeeping                         temperature less than or equal to 600°                 reduce VOC or HAP emissions from a
     Requirements for Process Units Without                  F. The 30 percent moisture and 600° F                  dry rotary dryer, you would be
     Add-On Control Devices                                  values were selected for the definitions               exempted from the process monitoring
        If you comply with the production-                   of dry and green rotary dryers based on                requirements for dry rotary dryers in
     based compliance options in today’s                     values reported in literature, in the                  today’s proposed rule.
     proposed rule without using an add-on                   questionnaire responses, and in the
     control system, then you would be                                                                              4. Monitoring and Recordkeeping
                                                             emissions test reports.
     required to monitor and record process                     Because the differences in dry rotary               Requirements for Veneer Redryer Work
     unit operating parameters. For most                     dryers and green rotary dryers are                     Practice Requirements
     process units, temperature would be the                 operational, we are including                             Veneer dryers that meet the definition
     required process monitoring parameter.                  monitoring requirements for dry rotary                 of ‘‘veneer redryers’’ in today’s
     Although HAP emissions vary within                      dryers in today’s proposed rule that                   proposed rule would not be subject to
     and among process units and no one                      would ensure that these dryers operate                 the proposed control requirements. Like
     process parameter is responsible for                    as dry rotary dryers on a continuous                   the differences between green and dry
     these variations, we selected                           basis. If you own or operate a dry rotary              rotary particle dryers, the differences
     temperature as the proposed required                    dryer, you would be required to                        between veneer dryers and veneer
     process monitoring parameter for most                   continuously monitor, calculate, and                   redryers are operational. Veneer dryers
     process units. We chose operating                       record the 24-hour average dryer inlet                 are used to dry green veneer, and veneer
     temperature because it affects HAP                      temperature and the 24-hour average                    redryers are used to redry veneer that
     emissions and can be controlled and                     moisture content of the incoming wood                  has been previously dried but requires
     monitored relatively easily.                            particles. In addition to monitoring                   some additional moisture reduction.
        As for the control device operating                  dryer inlet temperature and furnish                    Thus, in today’s proposed rule, veneer
     requirements, you could choose to                       moisture, you would be required to take                redryers are defined as veneer dryers
     monitor THC concentration using a                       representative grab samples of wood                    with an inlet veneer moisture content of
     CEMS at the process unit outlet instead                 particles at the dryer inlet once each day             less than 25 percent (by weight, dry
     of monitoring process unit temperature.                 of dryer operation and manually                        basis). The 25 percent value was
     If you use a THC CEMS, you would be                     determine the moisture content of the                  selected as the criterion for
     required to maintain the average THC                    sample on a dry basis. We have                         distinguishing between veneer dryers
     concentration at the process unit outlet                included the grab sampling requirement                 and veneer redryers because 25 percent
     below the maximum THC concentration                     as a means of checking the accuracy of                 was the highest reported veneer dryer
     established during the performance test.                the correlation between the moisture                   outlet moisture content in responses to
        If you elect to use emissions                        content measured by the continuous                     a survey. If you own or operate a veneer
     averaging, you would not be required to                 moisture sensor and the dry basis                      redryer, you would be required to
     monitor process parameters for those                    moisture content manually determined                   continuously monitor, calculate, and
     uncontrolled process units that are used                using a grab sample. The continuous                    record the 24-hour average inlet veneer
     to generate debits. However, when you                   moisture sensors measure moisture level                moisture content to show that you
     determine the total HAP emissions from                  as the ratio of the weight of water to the             continuously meet the definition of a
     these uncontrolled process units, you                   volume of wood (in the sensing zone).                  veneer redryer.
     would have to perform the emissions                     Today’s proposed rule defines moisture                    For purposes of today’s proposed rule,
     measurements under representative                       content, on a dry basis, as the ratio of               process units heated by microwaves or


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00020   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                              1295

     radio frequency that are used to remove                 add-on control systems used to control                    If there is a startup, shutdown, or
     moisture from veneer are not considered                 credit-generating process units.                       malfunction during the reporting
     to be veneer dryers or veneer redryers,                                                                        period, and you take actions
                                                             I. How Did We Select the Notification
     although these process units are                                                                               inconsistent with the SSMP, then you
                                                             and Reporting Requirements?
     typically used to redry veneer.                                                                                would be required to submit an
     Emissions test data from the NCASI                         We selected the proposed notification               immediate SSM report. The report
     sampling program indicate that                          and reporting requirements based on                    would have to include the actions taken
     emissions from radio frequency veneer                   requirements in the NESHAP General                     for the event and the information
     redryers are minimal compared to the                    Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A)                 provided in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). The
     emissions from veneer dryers heated by                  and specific requirements for the PCWP                 submittal date for the immediate SSM
     conventional means (such as direct                      source category.                                       report is based on § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). For
     firing or steam heating). Thus, the                        The notification requirements that we               facilities complying with the emissions
     monitoring requirements for veneer                      are proposing include Initial                          averaging provisions, the semiannual
     redryers described above would not                      Notifications, notification of                         compliance report would have to
     apply to process units that dry or redry                performance test, Notification of                      contain calculations showing that the
     veneer using microwaves or radio                        Compliance Status, and notification                    AMR equals or exceeds the RMR in
     frequency.                                              dates. These notification requirements                 addition to the requirements outlined
                                                             are based on requirements in §§ 63.7(b)                above for semiannual compliance
     5. Monitoring and Recordkeeping                         and (c), 63.8(e) and (f), 63.9(b) through              reports.
     Requirements for Hardwood Veneer                        (h), and 63.10(d)(2).                                     We have included a routine control
     Dryer Work Practice Requirements                           In addition, we selected notification               device maintenance exemption in
                                                             requirements for the emissions                         today’s proposed rule to provide an
       Veneer dryers that meet the definition                averaging provisions. If you comply
     of ‘‘hardwood veneer dryer’’ in today’s                                                                        allowance for control device downtime
                                                             with the emissions averaging
     proposed rule would not be subject to                                                                          associated with routine maintenance
                                                             provisions, you would have to submit
     the proposed control requirements.                                                                             such as bakeouts, washouts, and media
                                                             an EAP to the Administrator for
     Hardwood veneer dryers are defined in                                                                          replacement. We would like to clarify
                                                             approval at least 1 year prior to the
     the proposed rule as veneer dryers that                                                                        that there will also be instances when a
                                                             compliance date, or 1 year prior to the
     process less than 30 percent softwood                                                                          control device is offline for correction of
                                                             date you would begin using an
     species on an annual volume basis. If                                                                          malfunctions such as electrical
                                                             emissions average to comply with the
     you own or operate a hardwood veneer                                                                           problems, mechanical problems, utility
                                                             proposed rule, whichever is later. The
     dryer, you would be required to keep a                                                                         supply problems, pre-filer upsets,
                                                             EAP would have to be submitted prior
     record (such as a purchase or                                                                                  production malfunctions (e.g., dryer
                                                             to the date you would begin using an
     production record) of the annual                        emissions average so that the                          fires), and weather-related problems.
     volume percentage of softwood species                   Administrator would have time to                       Because these malfunctions are sudden,
     processed in the dryer to show that your                review and approve or disapprove the                   infrequent, and not reasonably
     dryer continuously meets the definition                 plan, and so that you would have time                  preventable, they would be covered
     of a hardwood veneer dryer.                             to ensure that the emissions credits                   under the SSM provisions of today’s
                                                             would equal or exceed the emissions                    proposed rule. In addition, control
     6. Monitoring and Recordkeeping                                                                                device downtime due to process upsets
     Requirements for Softwood Veneer                        debits.
                                                                The proposed reporting requirements                 that require shutdown and restarting of
     Dryer Work Practice Requirements                                                                               equipment would be covered under the
                                                             that we selected include semiannual
        The proposed work practice                           compliance reports, required in                        SSM provisions.
     requirement for softwood veneer dryers                  § 63.10(e)(3), and immediate SSM                       IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy
     is to minimize fugitive emissions from                  reports, required in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). If             and Economic Impacts
     the dryer doors and green end. If you                   there are no deviations from the
     own or operate a softwood veneer dryer,                 compliance options, operating                          A. How Many Facilities Are Impacted by
     you would be required to develop a plan                 requirements, or work practice                         This Proposed Rule?
     for minimizing fugitive emissions from                  requirements during the reporting                         This proposed rule is expected to
     the dryer, and you would have to keep                   period, then you would only be required                affect an estimated 223 existing major
     records to document that you are                        to include a statement that there were                 source facilities that manufacture
     following your plan to show continuous                  no deviations in your semiannual                       PCWP. The impacted facilities generally
     compliance with the work practice                       compliance report. If there are                        manufacture one or more of the
     requirement.                                            deviations from the compliance options,                following products: softwood plywood,
     7. Additional Recordkeeping                             operating requirements, or work                        softwood veneer, medium density
     Requirements for Sources Complying                      practice requirements during a reporting               fiberboard (MDF), oriented strandboard
     With Emissions Averaging Alternative                    period, then you would be required to                  (OSB), particleboard, hardboard,
                                                             submit the information required in                     laminated strand lumber, and laminated
       If you comply with the emissions                      today’s proposed rule in your                          veneer lumber. The number of impacted
     averaging provisions, you would be                      semiannual compliance report. If you                   facilities was determined based on the
     required to keep records of all                         have a startup, shutdown or                            estimated potential to emit (i.e.,
     information necessary to calculate                      malfunction during the reporting                       uncontrolled HAP emissions) from each
     debits and credits, including records of                period, and you take actions consistent                facility and whether or not the facility
     your process unit operating hours,                      with your SSM plan (SSMP), then your                   already operates control systems
     records of total HAP measurements for                   compliance report would have to                        necessary to meet the proposed
     debit-generating process units, and                     include the information in                             standards. Facilities with estimated
     records of performance tests for credit-                § 63.10(d)(5)(i). The submittal date for               potential to emit 25 tons or more of total
     generating process units. You would                     the compliance report is based on                      HAP or 10 or more tons of an individual
     also have to keep monitoring records for                information in § 63.10(e)(3)(v).                       HAP are major sources of HAP and are


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00021   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1296                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     subject to today’s proposed rule. Of the                  Combustion of exhaust gases in an                    energy demand is based on the
     estimated 223 facilities affected by this               RTO generates some emissions of                        electricity requirements associated with
     proposed rule, an estimated 166 are                     nitrogen oxides (NOX). We estimate that                RTOs and WESPs and the fuel
     expected to install add-on control                      the nationwide increase in NOX                         requirements associated with RTOs.
     systems to reduce emissions. The                        emissions due to the use of RTOs would                 Electricity requirements are expected to
     remaining facilities already have                       be about 4,300 Mg/yr (4,800 tons/yr).                  increase by about 718 gigawatt hours
     installed add-on controls, do not have                  This estimated increase in NOX                         per year (Gwh/yr) under the proposed
     any process units subject to the                        emissions may be an overestimate                       standards. Natural gas requirements are
     compliance options, or are expected to                  because some plants may select control                 expected to increase by about 45 million
     comply with work practice                               technologies other than RTOs to comply                 m3/yr (1.6 billion cubic feet per year
     requirements only.                                      with the proposed standards.                           (ft3/yr)) under the proposed standards.
       The environmental and cost impacts                      Indirect air impacts of today’s
                                                             proposed rule would result from                        F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
     presented in this preamble represent the
     estimated impacts for the 223 facilities.               increased electricity usage associated                    The cost impacts estimated for today’s
     The impact estimates were based on the                  with operation of control devices.                     proposed rule represent a high-end
     use of RTOs (or in some cases a                         Assuming that plants will purchase                     estimate of costs. Although the use of
     combination WESP and RTO) because                       electricity from a power plant, we                     RTO technology to reduce HAP
     RTOs are the most prevalent HAP                         estimate that the proposed standards                   emissions represents the most expensive
     emissions control technology used in                    may increase secondary emissions of                    compliance option, we based our
     the PCWP industry. However,                             criteria pollutants such as PM10, sulfur               nationwide cost estimates on the use of
     technologies other than RTOs could be                   dioxide (SO2), NOX, and CO from power                  RTO technology at all of the impacted
                                                             plants by about 6,200 Mg/yr (6,900 tons/               facilities because: (1) RTO technology
     used to comply with today’s proposed
                                                             yr).                                                   can be used to reduce emissions from all
     standards. For a facility that we believe
                                                                                                                    types of PCWP process units; and (2) we
     already achieves the emissions                          C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?                 could not accurately predict which
     reductions required by today’s proposed
                                                                Wastewater is produced from WESP                    facilities would use emissions averaging
     rule, only recordkeeping cost impacts
                                                             blowdown, washing out of RTOs, and                     or production-based emissions limits or
     were estimated.
                                                             biofilters. We based all of our impact                 install less expensive add-on control
       The number of affected facilities                     estimates on the use of RTOs (with or                  devices, such as RCO and biofilters.
     presented above (223) does not include                  without a WESP upstream depending on                   Therefore, our cost estimates are likely
     major source facilities with lumber kilns               the process unit). We estimate that the                to be overstated, as we anticipate that
     that are not otherwise PCWP facilities.                 wastewater generated from WESP                         owners and operators of impacted
     Some of these facilities may be major                   blowdown and RTO washouts would                        sources will take advantage of available
     sources of HAP emissions due to lumber                  increase by about 43 thousand cubic                    cost saving opportunities.
     drying operations. Because today’s                      meters per year (m3/yr)(11 million gal/                   The high-end estimated total capital
     proposed rule contains no control                       yr) as a result of today’s proposed rule.              costs of today’s proposed rule are $479
     requirements for lumber kilns, we                       Facilities would likely dispose of this                million. These capital costs apply to
     expect there to be no cost,                             wastewater by sending it to a municipal                existing sources and include the costs to
     environmental, or energy impacts                        treatment facility, evaporating it onsite,             purchase and install both the RTO
     associated with today’s proposed rule                   incinerating it in an onsite boiler,                   equipment (and in some cases, a WESP
     for these facilities.                                   reusing it onsite (e.g., in log vats or resin          upstream of the RTO) and the
     B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?                    mix), or hauling it offsite for spray                  monitoring equipment, and the costs of
                                                             irrigation.                                            performance tests. Permanent total
       We estimate nationwide baseline HAP                                                                          enclosure costs are also included for
     emissions from the PCWP source                          D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?                   reconstituted wood products presses.
     category to be 17,000 Mg/yr (19,000                       Solid waste is produced in the form                     The high-end estimated annualized
     tons/yr) at the current level of control.               of solids from WESPs and by RTO or                     costs of the proposed standards are $142
     We estimate that the proposed standards                 RCO media replacement. We estimate                     million. The annualized costs account
     would reduce total HAP emissions from                   that 4,500 Mg/yr (5,000 tons/yr) of solid              for the annualized capital costs of the
     the PCWP source category by about                       waste would be generated as a result of                control and monitoring equipment,
     9,700 Mg/yr (11,000 tons/yr). In                        today’s proposed rule. This solid                      operation and maintenance expenses,
     addition, we estimate that the proposed                 material may be disposed of in a landfill              and recordkeeping and reporting costs.
     standards would reduce VOC emissions                    or used for other purposes. Some PCWP                  Potential control device cost savings
     (approximated as THC) by about 25,000                   facilities have been able to use RTO or                and increased recordkeeping and
     Mg/yr (27,000 tons/yr) from a baseline                  RCO media as aggregate in onsite                       reporting costs associated with today’s
     level of 45,000 Mg/yr (50,000 tons/yr).                 roadbeds. Some facilities have also been               proposed emissions averaging
       In addition to reducing emissions of                  able to identify a beneficial reuse for                alternative standard are not accounted
     HAP and VOC, the proposed standards                     wet control device solids (such as giving              for in either the capital or annualized
     would also reduce emissions of criteria                 them away to local farmers for soil                    cost estimates.
     pollutants, such as carbon monoxide                     amendment).
     (CO) from direct-fired emission sources                                                                        G. Can We Achieve the Goals of the
     and particulate matter less than 10                     E. What Are the Energy Impacts?                        Proposed Rule in a Less Costly Manner?
     microns in diameter (PM10). We                            The overall energy demand (i.e.,                        We have made every effort in
     estimate that the proposed standards                    electricity and natural gas) is expected               developing this proposal to minimize
     would reduce CO emissions by about                      to increase by about 4.3 million                       the cost to the regulated community and
     10,000 Mg/yr (11,000 tons/yr). We                       gigajoules per year (GJ/yr) (4.1 trillion              allow maximum flexibility in
     estimate that the proposed standards                    British thermal units per year (Btu/yr))               compliance options consistent with our
     would reduce PM10 emissions by about                    nationwide under the proposed                          statutory obligations. We recognize,
     11,000 Mg/yr (13,000 tons/yr).                          standards. The estimated increase in the               however, that the proposal may still


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00022   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                    1297

     require some facilities to take costly                  exposures of HAP emitted by a source,                     To estimate the potential baseline
     steps to further control emissions even                 EPA specifically requests comment on                   risks posed by the PCWP source
     though those emissions may not result                   the appropriateness and necessity of                   category and the potential impact of
     in exposures which could pose an                        extending these approaches to account                  applicability cutoffs, EPA performed a
     excess individual lifetime cancer risk                  for non-inhalation exposures or to                     ‘‘rough’’ risk assessment for 185 of the
     greater than one in one million, or                     account for adverse environmental                      223 facilities in the PCWP source
     which exceed thresholds determined to                   impacts. In addition to the specific                   category. The HAP included in the
     provide an ample margin of safety for                   requests for comment noted in this                     assessment were acetaldehyde, acrolein,
     protecting public health and the                        section, we are also interested in any                 benzene, formaldehyde, manganese,
     environment from the effects of                         information or comment concerning                      methanol, methylene chloride, and
     hazardous air pollutants. We are,                       technical limitations, environmental                   phenol. Of these HAP, four are presently
     therefore, specifically soliciting                      and cost impacts, compliance assurance,                not considered to have thresholds for
     comment on whether there are further                    legal rationale, and implementation                    cancer effects: acetaldehyde, benzene,
     ways to structure the proposed rule to                  relevant to the identified approaches.                 formaldehyde, and methylene chloride.
     focus on the facilities which pose                      We also request comment on                                Of the 185 facilities assessed, 148
     significant risks and avoid the                         appropriate practicable and verifiable                 facilities were found to pose cancer
     imposition of high costs on facilities                  methods to ensure that sources’                        risks equal to or greater than one in one
     that pose little risk to public health and              emissions remain below levels that                     million to their surrounding population.
     the environment.                                        protect public health and the                          Forty-six facilities were predicted to
        Representatives of the plywood and                   environment. We will evaluate all                      pose cancer risks of one in 100,000 or
     composite wood products industry                        comments before determining whether                    greater, and two PCWP facilities were
     provided EPA with descriptions of three                 either of the three approaches will be                 found to pose cancer risks equal to or
     mechanisms that they believed could be                  included in the final rule.                            greater than one in 10,000.
     used to implement more cost-effective
     reductions in risk. The docket for                      1. Industry Emissions and Potential                    2. Applicability Cutoffs for Threshold
     today’s proposed rule contains ‘‘white                  Health Effects                                         Pollutants Under Section 112(d)(4) of
     papers’’ prepared by industry that                         For the PCWP source category, six                   the CAA
     outline their proposed approaches (see                  HAP make up about 96 percent of the                       The first approach is an ‘‘applicability
     docket number A–98–44, Item # II–D–                     total organic HAP (i.e., does not include              cutoff’’ for threshold pollutants that is
     525). These approaches could be                         metals that are HAP). Those six HAP are                based on EPA’s authority under CAA
     effective in focusing regulatory controls               methanol, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,                  section 112(d)(4) to establish standards
     on facilities that pose significant risks               phenol, acrolein, and propionaldehyde.                 for HAP which are ‘‘threshold
     and avoiding the imposition of high                     All HAP are not emitted by all sources.                pollutants.’’ A ‘‘threshold pollutant’’ is
     costs on facilities that pose little risk to            However, all of the 223 major sources                  one for which there is a concentration
     public health or the environment, and                   emit all six of the predominant HAP,                   or dose below which adverse effects are
     we are seeking public comment on the                    with a few exceptions. Some engineered                 not expected to occur over a lifetime of
     utility of each of these approaches with                wood plants do not emit phenol; these                  exposure. For such pollutants, section
     respect to this proposed rule.                          plants are major sources but would not                 112(d)(4) allows EPA to consider the
        One of the approaches, an                            be affected by the proposed rule because               threshold level, with an ample margin
     applicability cutoff for threshold                      they have no equipment subject to the                  of safety, when establishing emission
     pollutants, would be implemented                        proposed rule. Also, several                           standards. Specifically, section
     under the authority of CAA section                      particleboard plants do not emit                       112(d)(4) allows EPA to establish
     112(d)(4); the second approach,                         propionaldehyde; these particleboard                   emission standards that are not based
     subcategorization and delisting, would                  plants have dry rotary particle dryers (as             upon the MACT specified under section
     be implemented under the authority of                   opposed to green particle dryers), which               112(d)(2) for pollutants for which a
     CAA section 112(c)(1) and (c)(9); and,                  are not subject to control requirements.               health threshold has been established.
     the third approach, would involve the                   (For more information, see section                     Such standards may be less stringent
     use of a concentration-based                            III.C.3).                                              than MACT. Historically, EPA has
     applicability threshold. We are seeking                    In accordance with section 112(k),                  interpreted section 112(d)(4) to allow
     comment on whether these approaches                     EPA developed a list of 33 HAP which                   categories of sources that emit only
     are legally justified and, if so, we ask for            present the greatest threat to public                  threshold pollutants to avoid further
     information that could be used to                       health in the largest number of urban                  regulation if those emissions result in
     support such approaches.                                areas. Some of the PCWP HAP are                        ambient levels that do not exceed the
        The maximum achievable control                       included on this list for the EPA’s Urban              threshold, with an ample margin of
     technology, or MACT, program outlined                   Air Toxics Program. These HAP include                  safety.1
     in CAA section 112(d) is intended to                    three of the six most predominant                         A different interpretation would allow
     reduce emissions of HAP through the                     PCWP HAP (acetaldehyde, acrolein, and                  us to exempt individual facilities within
     application of MACT to major sources of                 formaldehyde). Additional urban HAP                    a source category that meet the section
     toxic air pollutants. Section 112(c)(9) is              that may be emitted by PCWP facilities                 112(d)(4) requirements. There are three
     intended to allow EPA to avoid setting                  include benzene, carbon tetrachloride,                 potential scenarios under this
     MACT standards for categories or                        chloroform, and methylene chloride.                    interpretation of the section 112(d)(4)
     subcategories of sources that pose less                    In November 1998, EPA published ‘‘A
                                                                                                                    provision. One scenario would allow an
     than a specified level of risk to public                Multimedia Strategy for Priority
                                                                                                                    exemption for individual facilities that
     health and the environment. The EPA                     Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
                                                                                                                    emit only threshold pollutants and can
     requests comment on whether the                         (PBT) Pollutants.’’ The organic HAP
                                                                                                                    demonstrate that their emissions of
     approaches described here                               emitted by PCWP facilities do not
     appropriately rely on the provisions of                 appear on the published list of PBT                      1 See 63 FR 18754, 18765–66 (April 15, 1998)
     CAA section 112. While the approaches                   compounds referenced in the EPA                        (Pulp and Paper Combustion Sources Proposed
     focus on assessing the inhalation                       strategy.                                              NESHAP)



VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00023   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1298                              Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     threshold pollutants would not result in                                       Estimation of hazard quotients and                                   threshold pollutants recommends
     air concentrations above the threshold                                      hazard indices. Under the section                                       calculating a ‘‘hazard index’’ by
     levels, with an ample margin of safety,                                     112(d)(4) approach, EPA would have to                                   summing the individual hazard
     even if the category is otherwise subject                                   determine that emissions of each of the                                 quotients for those pollutants in the
     to MACT. A second scenario would                                            threshold pollutants emitted by PCWP                                    mixture that affect the same target organ
     allow the section 112(d)(4) provision to                                    sources at the facility do not result in                                or system by the same mechanism.3
     be applied to both threshold and non-                                       exposures which exceed the threshold                                    Hazard index (HI) values would be
     threshold pollutants, using the one in a                                    levels, with an ample margin of safety.                                 interpreted similarly to hazard
     million cancer risk level for                                               The common approach for evaluating                                      quotients; values below one would
     decisionmaking for non-threshold                                            the potential hazard of a threshold air                                 generally be considered to be without
     pollutants. A third scenario would                                          pollutant is to calculate a ‘‘hazard                                    appreciable risk of adverse health
     allow a section 112(d)(4) exemption at                                      quotient’’ by dividing the pollutant’s                                  effects, and values above one would
     a facility that emits both threshold and                                    inhalation exposure concentration                                       generally be cause for concern.
     non-threshold pollutants. For those                                         (often assumed to be equivalent to its
                                                                                 estimated concentration in air at a                                        For the determinations discussed
     emission points where only threshold                                                                                                                herein, EPA would generally plan to use
                                                                                 location where people could be
     pollutants are emitted and where                                                                                                                    RfC values contained in EPA’s
                                                                                 exposed) by the pollutant’s inhalation
     emissions of the threshold pollutants                                                                                                               toxicology database, the Integrated Risk
                                                                                 Reference Concentration (RfC). An RfC
     would not result in air concentrations                                                                                                              Information System (IRIS). When a
                                                                                 is defined as an estimate (with
     above the threshold levels, with an                                         uncertainty spanning perhaps an order                                   pollutant does not have an approved
     ample margin of safety, those emission                                      of magnitude) of a continuous                                           RfC in IRIS, or when a pollutant is a
     points could be exempt from the MACT                                        inhalation exposure that, over a lifetime,                              carcinogen, EPA would have to
     standard. The MACT standard would                                           likely would not result in the                                          determine whether a threshold exists
     still apply to non-threshold emissions                                      occurrence of adverse health effects in                                 based upon the availability of specific
     from other emission points at the                                           humans, including sensitive                                             data on the pollutant’s mode or
     source. For this third scenario, emission                                   individuals. The EPA typically                                          mechanism of action, potentially using
     points that emit a combination of                                           establishes an RfC by applying                                          a health threshold value from an
     threshold and non-threshold pollutants                                      uncertainty factors to the critical toxic                               alternative source, such as the Agency
     that are co-controlled by MACT would                                        effect derived from the lowest- or no-                                  for Toxic Substances and Disease
     still be subject to the MACT level of                                       observed-adverse-effect level of a                                      Registry (ATSDR) or the California
     control. However, any threshold HAP                                         pollutant.2 A hazard quotient less than                                 Environmental Protection Agency
     eligible for exemption under section                                        one means that the exposure                                             (CalEPA). Table 2 of this preamble
     112(d)(4) that are controlled by control                                    concentration of the pollutant is less                                  provides RfC’s, as well as unit risk
     devices different from those controlling                                    than the RfC and, therefore, presumed to                                estimates, for the HAP emitted by
     non-threshold HAP would be able to use                                      be without appreciable risk of adverse                                  facilities in the PCWP source category.
     the exemption, and the facility would                                       health effects. A hazard quotient greater                               A unit risk estimate is defined as the
     still be subject to the provisions of the                                   than one means that the exposure                                        upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk
     standard that control non-threshold                                         concentration of the pollutant is greater                               estimated to result from continuous
     pollutants or that control both threshold                                   than the RfC. Further, EPA guidance for                                 exposure to an agent at a concentration
     and non-threshold pollutants.                                               assessing exposures to mixtures of                                      of 1 µg/m3 in air.

              TABLE 2.—DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT VALUES FOR SOME HAP REPORTED EMITTED BY THE PLYWOOD AND
                                    COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS SOURCE CATEGORY a, b
                                                                                                                                                                  Reference con-       Unit risk estimate d
                                                         Chemical name                                                                         CAS No.          centration c (mg/m3)       (1/(ug/m3))

     Acetaldehyde ................................................................................................................                75–07–0       9.0E–03                2.2E–06
                                                                                                                                                                (IRIS)                 (IRIS)
     Acrolein .........................................................................................................................          107–02–8       2.0E–05
                                                                                                                                                                (IRIS)
     Benzene ........................................................................................................................             71–43–2       6.0E–02                7.8E–06
                                                                                                                                                                (CAL)                  (IRIS)
     Carbon tetrachloride e ...................................................................................................                   56–23–5       4.0E–02                1.5E–05
                                                                                                                                                                (CAL)                  (IRIS)
     Chloroform e ..................................................................................................................              67–66–3       9.8E–02
                                                                                                                                                                (ATSDR)
     Formaldehyde ...............................................................................................................                 50–00–0       9.8E–03                1.3E–05
                                                                                                                                                                (ATSDR)                (IRIS)
     Manganese compounds ...............................................................................................                        7439–96–5       5.0E–05
                                                                                                                                                                (IRIS)
     Methanol .......................................................................................................................             67–56–1       4.0E+00
                                                                                                                                                                (CAL)
     Methyl ethyl ketone .......................................................................................................                  78–93–3       1.0E+00
                                                                                                                                                                (IRIS)
     Methylene chloride ........................................................................................................                  75–09–2       1.0E+00                4.7E–07
                                                                                                                                                                (ATSDR)                (IRIS)

       2 ‘‘Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference                          3 ‘‘Supplementary Guidance for Conducting                             00/002. USEPA, August 2000. http://www.epa.gov/
     Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation                               Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk                       nceawww1/pdfs/chem mix/chem mix 08 2001.pdf.
     Dosimetry.’’ EPA–600/8–90–066F, Office of                                   Assessment Forum Technical Panel,’’ EPA/630/R–
     Research and Development, USEPA, October 1994.



VerDate Dec<13>2002         16:26 Jan 08, 2003         Jkt 200001       PO 00000       Frm 00024        Fmt 4701       Sfmt 4702          E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM    09JAP2
                                       Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                                               1299

              TABLE 2.—DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT VALUES FOR SOME HAP REPORTED EMITTED BY THE PLYWOOD AND
                               COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS SOURCE CATEGORY a, b—Continued
                                                                                                                                                                  Reference con-       Unit risk estimate d
                                                         Chemical name                                                                         CAS No.          centration c (mg/m3)       (1/(ug/m3))

     Phenol ...........................................................................................................................          108–95–2       2.0E–01
                                                                                                                                                                (CAL)
        a Propionaldehyde,    a HAP emitted by the PCWP source category, is not included in Table 2 because there are no dose-response values for it.
        b The  table includes many, but not all, of the HAP emitted by the PCWP source category. The following additional HAP have been detected at
     more than one PCWP facility: cumene, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), styrene, toluene, m,p-xylene, o-xylene, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
     (MDI), chloromethane, and ethyl benzene. In addition, the following HAP have been detected at only one PCWP facility: acetophenone, biphenyl,
     bis-(2-ethylhexyl phthalate), bromomethane, carbon disulfide, di-n-butyl phthalate, ethyl benzene, hydroquinone, n-hexane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
     4-methyl-2-pentanone, chloroethane, m,p-cresol, and o-cresol. Other HAP, including metal compounds (in addition to manganese compounds)
     may be emitted by facilities in the PCWP source category.
        c Reference Concentration: An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the
     human population (including sensitive subgroups which include children, asthmatics and the elderly) that is likely to be without an appreciable
     risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally ap-
     plied to reflect limitations of the data used.
        d Unit Risk Estimate: The upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration
     of 1 µg/m3 in air. The interpretation of the Unit Risk Estimate would be as follows: if the Unit Risk Estimate = 1.5 × 10–6 per µg/m3, 1.5 excess
     tumors are expected to develop per 1,000,000 people if exposed daily for a lifetime to 1 µg of the chemical in 1 cubic meter of air. Unit Risk Esti-
     mates are considered upper bound estimates, meaning they represent a plausible upper limit to the true value. (Note that this is usually not a
     true statistical confidence limit.) The true risk is likely to be less, but could be greater.
        e This HAP was detected at only one PCWP facility.
        Sources:
        IRIS = EPA Integrated Risk Information System (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html).
        ATSDR = U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html).
        CAL = California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/index.html).
        HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (#PB(=97–921199, July 1997).


        To establish an applicability cutoff                                     target organ. The guidance notes that the                               vicinity of the facility or through other
     under section 112(d)(4), EPA would                                          pollutants included in the HI                                           routes of exposure (e.g., through
     need to define ambient air exposure                                         calculation are any pollutants that show                                ingestion).
     concentration limits for any threshold                                      the effect being assessed, regardless of                                   A second option is to adopt a ‘‘default
     pollutants involved. There are several                                      the critical effect upon which the RfC is                               percentage’’ approach, whereby the
     factors to consider when establishing                                       based. The guidance cautions that if the                                hazard index limit of the HAP emitted
     such concentrations. First, we would                                        target organ or toxic effect for which the                              by the facility is set at some percentage
     need to ensure that the concentrations                                      HI is calculated is different from the                                  of one (e.g., 20 percent or 0.2). This
     that would be established would protect                                     RfC’s critical effect, then the RfC for that                            approach recognizes the fact that the
     public health with an ample margin of                                       chemical can be an overestimate, that is,                               facility in question is only one of many
     safety. As discussed above, the                                             the resultant HI potentially may be                                     sources of threshold HAP to which
     approach EPA commonly uses when                                             overprotective. Conversely, since the                                   people are typically exposed every day.
     evaluating the potential hazard of a                                        calculation of an HI does not account for                               Because noncancer risk assessment is
     threshold air pollutant is to calculate                                     the fact that the potency of a mixture of                               predicated on total exposure or dose,
     the pollutant’s hazard quotient, which is                                   HAP can be more potent than the sum                                     and because risk assessments focus only
     the exposure concentration divided by                                       of the individual HAP potencies, an HI                                  on an individual source, establishing a
     the RfC.                                                                    may potentially be underprotective in                                   hazard index limit of 0.2 would account
        The EPA’s ‘‘Supplementary Guidance                                       some situations.                                                        for an assumption that 20 percent of an
     for Conducting Health Risk Assessment                                         Options for establishing a hazard                                     individual’s total exposure is from that
     of Chemical Mixtures’’ suggests that the                                    index limit. One consideration in                                       individual source. For the purposes of
     noncancer health effects associated with                                    establishing a hazard index limit is                                    this discussion, we will call all sources
     a mixture of pollutants ideally are                                         whether the analysis considers the total                                of HAP, other than the facility in
     assessed by considering the pollutants’                                     ambient air concentrations of all the                                   question, ‘‘background’’ sources. If the
     common mechanisms of toxicity.4 The                                         emitted HAP to which the public is                                      facility is allowed to emit HAP such that
     guidance also suggests, however, that                                       exposed.5 There are at least several                                    its own impacts could result in HI
     when exposures to mixtures of                                               options for establishing a hazard index                                 values of one, total exposures to
     pollutants are being evaluated, the risk                                    limit for the section 112(d)(4) analysis                                threshold HAP in the vicinity of the
     assessor may calculate an HI. The                                           that reflect, to varying degrees, public                                facility could be substantially greater
     recommended method is to calculate                                          exposure.                                                               than one due to background sources,
     multiple hazard indices for each                                                                                                                    and this would not be protective of
                                                                                   One option is to allow the hazard
     exposure route of interest and for a                                                                                                                public health since only HI values
                                                                                 index posed by all threshold HAP
     single specific toxic effect or toxicity to                                                                                                         below one are considered to be without
                                                                                 emitted from PCWP sources at the
     a single target organ. The default                                                                                                                  appreciable risk of adverse health
                                                                                 facility to be no greater than one. This
     approach recommended by the guidance                                                                                                                effects. Thus, setting the hazard index
                                                                                 approach is protective if no additional
     is to sum the hazard quotients for those                                                                                                            limit for the facility at some default
                                                                                 threshold HAP exposures would be
     pollutants that induce the same toxic                                                                                                               percentage of one will provide a buffer
                                                                                 anticipated from other sources in the
     effect or affect the same target organ. A                                                                                                           which would help to ensure that total
     mixture is then assessed by several HI,                                       5 Senate Debate on Conference Report (October
                                                                                                                                                         exposures to threshold HAP near the
     each representing one toxic effect or                                       27, 1990), reprinted in ‘‘A Legislative History of the
                                                                                                                                                         facility (i.e., in combination with
                                                                                 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ Comm. Print                         exposures due to background sources)
       4 Ibid.                                                                   S. Prt. 103–38 (1993) (‘‘Legis. Hist.’’ at 868.                         will generally not exceed one and can


VerDate Dec<13>2002         16:26 Jan 08, 2003         Jkt 200001       PO 00000       Frm 00025        Fmt 4701       Sfmt 4702          E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM    09JAP2
     1300                      Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     generally be considered to be without                     combining estimates of pollutant                       be assigned non-linear dose-response
     appreciable risk of adverse health                        emissions with air dispersion modeling                 relationships where data warrant.
     effects.                                                  to predict exposures. The EPA envisions                Moreover, it is possible that dose-
        The EPA requests comment on using                      that we would promote a tiered                         response curves for some pollutants
     the ‘‘default percentage’’ approach and                   analytical approach for these                          may reach zero risk at a dose greater
     on setting the default hazard index limit                 determinations. A tiered analysis                      than zero, creating a threshold for
     at 0.2. The EPA is also requesting                        involves making successive refinements                 carcinogenic effects. It is possible that
     comment on whether an alternative HI                      in modeling methodologies and input                    future evaluations of the carcinogens
     limit, in some multiple of one, would be                  data to derive successively less                       emitted by this source category would
     a more appropriate applicability cutoff.                  conservative, more realistic estimates of              determine that one or more of the
        A third option is to use available data                pollutant concentrations in air and                    carcinogens in the category is a
     (from scientific literature or EPA                        estimates of risk.                                     threshold carcinogen or is a carcinogen
     studies, for example) to determine                           As a first tier of analysis, EPA could              that exhibits a non-linear dose-response
     background concentrations of HAP,                         develop a series of simple look-up tables              relationship but does not have a
     possibly on a national or regional basis.                 based on the results of air dispersion                 threshold.
     These data would be used to estimate                      modeling conducted using conservative                     The dose-response assessments for
     the exposures to HAP from non-PCWP                        input assumptions. By specifying a                     formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are
     sources in the vicinity of an individual                  limited number of input parameters,                    currently undergoing revision by the
     facility. For example, the EPA’s                          such as stack height, distance to                      EPA. As part of this revision effort, EPA
     National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment                      property line, and emission rate, a                    is evaluating formaldehyde and
     (NATA) 6 and ATSDR’s Toxicological                        facility could use these look-up tables to             acetaldehyde as potential non-linear
     Profiles 7 contain information about                      easily determine whether the emissions                 carcinogens. The revised dose-response
     background concentrations of some                         from their sources might cause a hazard                assessments will be subject to review by
     HAP in the atmosphere and other                           index limit to be exceeded.                            the EPA Science Advisory Board,
     media. The combined exposures from                           A facility that does not pass this                  followed by full consensus review,
     PCWP sources and from other sources                       initial conservative screening analysis                before adoption into the EPA IRIS. At
     (as determined from the literature or                     could implement increasingly more site-                this time, EPA estimates that the
     studies) would then not be allowed to                     specific but more resource-intensive                   consensus review will be completed by
     exceed a hazard index limit of one. The                   tiers of analysis using EPA-approved                   the end of 2003. The revision of the
     EPA requests comment on the                               modeling procedures in an attempt to                   dose-response assessments could affect
     appropriateness of setting the hazard                     demonstrate that exposure to emissions                 the potency factors of these HAP, as
     index limit at one for such an analysis.                  from the facility does not exceed the                  well as their status as threshold or non-
        A fourth option is to allow facilities                 hazard index limit. The EPA’s guidance                 threshold pollutants. At this time, the
     to estimate or measure their own                          could provide the basis for conducting                 outcome is not known. In addition to
     facility-specific background HAP                          such a tiered analysis.8                               the current reassessment by EPA, there
     concentrations for use in their analysis.                    The EPA requests comment on                         have been several reassessments of the
     With regard to the third and fourth                       methods for constructing and                           toxicity and carcinogenicity of
     options, the EPA requests comment on                      implementing a tiered analytical                       formaldehyde in recent years, including
     how these analyses could be structured.                   approach for determining applicability                 work by the World Health Organization
     Specifically, EPA requests comment on                     of the section 112(d)(4) criterion to                  and the Canadian Ministry of Health.
     how the analyses should take into                         specific PCWP sources. It is also                         The EPA requests comment on how
     account background exposure levels                        possible that ambient monitoring data                  we should consider the state of the
     from air, water, food and soil                            could be used to supplement or                         science as it relates to the treatment of
     encountered by the individuals exposed                    supplant the tiered modeling approach                  threshold pollutants when making
     to PCWP emissions. In addition, we                        described above. It is envisioned that                 determinations under section 112(d)(4).
     request comment on how such analyses                      the appropriate monitoring to support                  In addition, EPA requests comment on
     should account for potential increases                    such a determination could be                          whether there is a level of emissions of
     in exposures due to the use of a new or                   extensive. The EPA requests comment                    a non-threshold carcinogenic HAP (e.g.,
     the increased use of a previously                         on the appropriate use of monitoring in                benzene, methylene chloride) at which
     emitted HAP, or the effect of other                       the determinations described above.                    it would be appropriate to allow a
     nearby sources that release HAP.                             Accounting for dose-response                        facility to use the approaches discussed
        The EPA requests comment on the                        relationships. In the past, EPA routinely              in this section.
     feasibility and scientific validity of each                                                                         Risk assessment results. The results of
                                                               treated carcinogens as non-threshold
     of these or other approaches. Finally,                                                                           the human health risk assessments
                                                               pollutants. The EPA recognizes that
     EPA requests comment on how we                                                                                   described below are based on
                                                               advances in risk assessment science and
     should implement the section 112(d)(4)                                                                           approaches for quantifying exposure,
                                                               policy may affect the way EPA
     applicability cutoffs, including                                                                                 risk, and cancer incidence that carry
                                                               differentiates between threshold and
     appropriate mechanisms for applying                                                                              significant assumptions, uncertainties,
                                                               non-threshold HAP. The EPA’s Draft
     cutoffs to individual facilities. For                                                                            and limitations. For example, in
                                                               Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
     example, would the title V permit                                                                                conducting these types of analyses,
                                                               Assessment 9 suggest that carcinogens
     process provide an appropriate                                                                                   there are typically many uncertainties
     mechanism?                                                  8 ‘‘A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the
                                                                                                                      regarding dose-response functions,
        Tiered analytical approach for                         Risks due to Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.’’    levels of exposure, exposed populations,
     predicting exposure. Establishing that a                  EPA–450/4–92–001. David E. Guinnup, Office of          air quality modeling applications,
     facility meets the cutoffs under section                  Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March       emission levels, and control
                                                               1992.                                                  effectiveness. Because the estimates
     112(d)(4) will necessarily involve                          9 ‘‘Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk

                                                               Assessment.’’ NCEA–F–0644. USEPA, Risk
                                                                                                                      derived from the various scoping
       6 See   http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata.                Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3–9ff. http://         approaches are necessarily rough, we
       7 See   http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html.          www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/pdfs/cancer_gls.pdf               are concerned that they not convey a


VerDate Dec<13>2002     16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00026   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                             1301

     false sense of precision. It is expected                as such, they are subject to significant               category that would meet the risk-based
     that any point estimate of risk reduction               uncertainties, such that the actual risks              criteria for delisting. Such criteria
     or benefits generated by these                          at any one facility could be significantly             would likely include the same
     approaches should be considered as part                 higher or lower. Therefore, while these                requirements as described previously
     of a range of potential estimates.                      risk estimates assist in providing a                   for the second scenario under the
        If the final rule is implemented as                  broad picture of impacts across the                    section 112(d)(4) approach, whereby a
     proposed at all PCWP facilities, annual                 source category, they should not be the                facility would be in the low-risk
     cancer incidence would be reduced                       basis for an exemption from the                        subcategory if its emissions of threshold
     from about 0.09 cases/year to about 0.02                requirements of the proposed rule.                     pollutants do not result in exposures
     cases/year, while the number of people                  Rather, facility-specific risks would                  which exceed the HI limits and if its
     at or above a cancer risk level of one in               require site-specific data and a more                  emissions of non-threshold pollutants
     a million would be reduced from about                   refined analysis.                                      do not result in exposures which exceed
     900,000 to 150,000. In addition, the                       For either of the first two approaches              a cancer risk level of 10¥6. The EPA
     number of people exposed to HI values                   described above, the actual number of                  requests comment on what an
     equal to or greater than one was                        facilities that would qualify for an                   appropriate HI limit would be for a
     estimated to be reduced from about                      exemption would depend upon site-                      determination that a facility be included
     270,000 to about 30,000, and the                        specific risk assessments and the                      in the low-risk subcategory.
     number of people exposed to HI values                   specified hazard index limit. If the                      Since each facility in such a
     of 0.2 or greater was predicted to                      section 112(d)(4) approach were                        subcategory would be a low-risk facility
     decrease from about 1,500,000 to about                  adopted, the rulemaking would likely                   (i.e., if each met these criteria), the
     250,000. (Details of these analyses are                 indicate that the requirements of the                  subcategory could be delisted in
     available in the docket.)                               rule do not apply to any source that                   accordance with section 112(c)(9),
        Based on the results of this rough                   demonstrates, based on a tiered                        thereby limiting the costs and impacts
     assessment, if the section 112(d)(4)                    approach that includes EPA-approved                    of the proposed MACT rule to only
     approach is applied only to threshold                   modeling of the affected source’s                      those facilities that do not qualify for
     pollutants, EPA estimates that few, if                  emissions, that the anticipated HAP                    subcategorization and delisting. The
     any, of the 223 facilities in the plywood               exposures do not exceed the specified                  EPA estimates that the maximum
     source category could obtain an                         hazard index limit.                                    potential effect of this approach would
     exemption from the rule, since it                                                                              be the same as that of applying the
     appears that all or nearly all facilities               3. Subcategory Delisting Under Section
                                                                                                                    section 112(d)(4) approach that allows
     emit some amount of one or more non-                    112(c)(9)(B) of the CAA
                                                                                                                    exemption of facilities emitting
     threshold pollutants. If the revised dose-                 The EPA is authorized to establish                  threshold and non-threshold pollutants
     response assessments for formaldehyde                   categories and subcategories of sources,               if exemption criteria are met (i.e., as
     and acetaldehyde determine that they                    as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section                many as 33 of the 223 facilities may be
     are threshold carcinogens, these                        112(c)(1), in order to facilitate the                  exempt under this approach, if an HI
     estimates could increase. This                          development of MACT standards                          limit of one and a cancer risk level of
     application of the section 112(d)(4)                    consistent with section 112 of the CAA.                10¥6 are used; or, as many as 26 of the
     approach is estimated to produce                        Further, section 112(c)(9)(B) allows EPA               223 may be exempt if an HI limit of 0.2
     minimal potential cost savings.                         to delete a category (or subcategory)                  and a cancer risk level of 10¥6 are
        The second scenario under the section                from the list of major sources for which               used).
     112(d)(4) provision would apply to both                 MACT standards are to be developed                        Facilities seeking to be included in
     threshold and non-threshold pollutants.                 when the following can be                              the delisted subcategory would be
     If this interpretation is selected, EPA                 demonstrated: (1) In the case of                       responsible for providing all data
     estimates that, if a HI limit of one and                carcinogenic pollutants, that ‘‘* * * no               required to determine whether they are
     a cancer risk level of 10¥6 were used,                  source in the category * * * emits                     eligible for inclusion. Facilities that
     as many as 33 of the 223 facilities in the              (carcinogenic) air pollutants in                       could not demonstrate that they are
     source category may be exempt from the                  quantities which may cause a lifetime                  eligible to be included in the low-risk
     proposed rule and that, if a HI limit of                risk of cancer greater than one in one                 subcategory would be subject to MACT
     0.2 and a cancer risk level of 10¥6 were                million to the individual in the                       and possible future residual risk
     used, as many as 26 of the 223 facilities               population who is most exposed to                      standards. The EPA solicits comment on
     may be exempt. The EPA estimates that                   emissions of such pollutants from the                  implementing a risk-based approach for
     the cost of the rule as proposed would                  source’’; (2) in the case of pollutants that           establishing subcategories of PCWP
     be approximately $142 million per year,                 cause adverse noncancer health effects,                facilities.
     resulting in an annual cost savings of                  that ‘‘* * * emissions from no source in                  Establishing that a facility qualifies
     about $9 million per year (for a HI limit               the category or subcategory * * *                      for the low-risk subcategory under
     of one) or about $7 million per year (for               exceed a level which is adequate to                    section 112(c)(9) will necessarily
     a HI limit of 0.2) (as compared to                      protect public health with an ample                    involve combining estimates of
     establishing a MACT standard for all                    margin of safety’’; and (3) in the case of             pollutant emissions with air dispersion
     plants in the industry).                                pollutants that cause adverse                          modeling to predict exposures. The EPA
        The EPA does not expect the third                    environmental effects, that ‘‘* * * no                 envisions that we would employ the
     scenario, which would allow emission                    adverse environmental effect will result               same tiered analytical approach
     point exemptions, to be applicable for                  from emissions from any source.’’                      described earlier in the section 112(d)(4)
     the PCWP source category because                           Given these authorities and the                     discussion for these determinations.
     mixtures of threshold and non-threshold                 suggestions from the white paper                          One concern that EPA has with
     pollutants are co-emitted, and the same                 prepared by industry representatives                   respect to this section 112(c)(9)
     emission controls would apply to both.                  (see docket number A–98–44), EPA is                    approach is the effect that it could have
     The risk estimates from this rough                      considering whether it would be                        on the MACT floors. If many of the
     assessment are based on typical facility                possible to establish a subcategory of                 facilities in the low-risk subcategory are
     configurations (i.e., model plants) and,                facilities within the larger PCWP                      well-controlled, that could make the


VerDate Dec<13>2002   17:25 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00027   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1302                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     MACT floor less stringent for the                       reduction of 0.1 to 0.7 percent for PCWP               Mg/yr (11,000 tons/yr), PM10 emission
     remaining facilities. One approach that                 manufacturers as a result of the                       reductions total approximately 11,000
     has been suggested to mitigate this effect              proposed rule. There is only one plant                 Mg/yr (13,000 tons/yr), and VOC
     would be to establish the MACT floor                    closure expected out of the 223 facilities             emission reductions (approximated as
     now, based on controls in place for the                 affected by the proposed rule. It should               THC) total approximately 25,000 Mg/yr
     entire category, and to allow facilities to             be noted that the baseline economic                    (27,000 tons/yr). These estimated
     become part of the low-risk subcategory                 condition of the facility predicted to                 reductions occur from existing sources
     in the future, after the MACT standard                  close rather than incur the costs of                   in operation 3 years after the
     is established. This would allow low                    compliance with the proposed rule                      implementation of the requirements of
     risk facilities to use the section 112(c)(9)            affects the closure estimate provided by               the proposed rule and are expected to
     exemption without affecting the MACT                    the economic model, and that the                       continue throughout the life of the
     floor calculation. The EPA requests                     facility predicted to close appears to                 sources. Human health effects
     comment on this suggested approach.                     have low profitability levels currently.               associated with exposure to CO include
        Another approach under section                       Therefore, it is likely that there is no               cardiovascular system and central
     112(c)(9) would be to define a                          adverse impact expected to occur for                   nervous system (CNS) effects, which are
     subcategory of facilities within the                    those industries that produce output                   directly related to reduced oxygen
     PCWP source category based upon                         affected by the proposed rule, such as                 content of blood and which can result
     technological differences, such as                      hardboard, softwood plywood and                        in modification of visual perception,
     differences in production rate, emission                veneer, engineered wood products, and                  hearing, motor and sensorimotor
     vent flow rates, overall facility size,                 other wood composites.                                 performance, vigilance, and cognitive
     emissions characteristics, processes, or                                                                       ability. The VOC emissions reductions
     air pollution control device viability.                 I. What Are the Social Costs and
                                                             Benefits?                                              may lead to some reduction in ozone
     The EPA requests comment on how we                                                                             concentrations in areas in which the
     might establish PCWP subcategories                         Our assessment of costs and benefits                affected sources are located. There are
     based on these, or other, source                        of the proposed rule is detailed in the                both human health and welfare effects
     characteristics. If it could then be                    ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the                   that result from exposure to ozone, and
     determined that each source in this                     Proposed Plywood and Composite                         these effects are listed in Table 3 of this
     technologically-defined subcategory                     Wood Products MACT.’’ The Regulatory                   preamble.
     presents a low risk to the surrounding                  Impact Analysis (RIA) is located in
                                                             Docket number A–98–44.                                    At the present time, we cannot
     community, the subcategory could then
                                                                It is estimated that 3 years after                  provide a monetary estimate for the
     be delisted in accordance with section
                                                             implementation of the proposed                         benefits associated with the reductions
     112(c)(9). The EPA requests comment
                                                             requirements, HAP would be reduced                     in CO. We also did not provide a
     on the concept of identifying
                                                             by 9,700 Mg/yr (11,000 tons/yr) due to                 monetary estimate for the benefits
     technologically-based subcategories that
                                                             reductions in formaldehyde,                            associated with the changes in ozone
     may include only low-risk facilities
                                                             acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol,                      concentrations that result from the VOC
     within the PCWP source category.
        If this section 112(c)(9) approach were              phenol and several other HAP from                      emission reductions since we are unable
     adopted, the rulemaking would likely                    existing PCWP emission sources. The                    to do the necessary air quality modeling
     indicate that the rule does not apply to                health effects associated with these HAP               to estimate the ozone concentration
     any source that demonstrates that it                    are discussed earlier in this preamble.                changes. For PM10, we did not provide
     belongs in a subcategory which has been                    At this time, we are unable to provide              a monetary estimate for the benefits
     delisted under section 112(c)(9).                       a comprehensive quantification and                     associated with the reduction of the
        Consideration of criteria pollutants.                monetization of the HAP-related                        emissions, although these reductions are
     Finally, EPA projects that adoption of                  benefits of this proposal. Nevertheless,               likely to have significant health benefits
     the MACT floor level of controls would                  it is possible to derive rough estimates               to populations living in the vicinity of
     result in increases in NOX emissions.                   for one of the more important benefit                  affected sources.
     This pollutant is a precursor in the                    categories, i.e., the potential number of                 There may be increases in NOX
     formation of fine PM, which has been                    cancer cases avoided and cancer risk                   emissions associated with the proposed
     associated with a variety of adverse                    reduced as a result of the imposition of               rule as a result of increased use of
     health effects (including premature                     the MACT level of control on this                      incineration-based controls. These NOX
     mortality, chronic bronchitis, and                      source category. Our analysis suggests                 emission increases by themselves could
     increased frequency of asthma attacks).                 that imposition of the MACT level of                   cause some increase in ozone and PM
     The EPA requests comment on the                         control would reduce cancer cases by                   concentrations, which could lead to
     extent to which consideration should be                 zero to less than one case per year, on                impacts on human health and welfare as
     given to the adverse effects of the                     average, starting some years after                     listed in Table 3. The potential impacts
     possible increase in NOX emissions                      implementation of the standards. We                    associated with increases in ambient PM
     from applying MACT technology, in the                   present these results in the RIA. This                 and ozone due to these emission
     context of implementing our authority                   risk reduction estimate is uncertain and               increases are discussed in the RIA. In
     under section 112(c)(9) or other                        should be regarded as an extremely                     addition to potential NOX increases at
     exemptions.                                             rough estimate and should be viewed in                 affected sources, the proposed rule may
                                                             the context of the full spectrum of                    also result in additional electricity use
     H. What Are the Economic Impacts?                       unquantified noncancer effects                         at affected sources due to application of
        The economic impact analysis shows                   associated with the HAP reductions.                    controls. These potential increases in
     that the expected price increases for                      The control technologies used to                    electricity use may increase emissions
     affected output would range from only                   reduce the level of HAP emitted from                   of SO2 and NOX from electricity
     0.7 to 2.5 percent as a result of the                   PCWP sources are also expected to                      generating utilities. As such, the
     proposed NESHAP for PCWP                                reduce emissions of CO, PM10, and                      proposed rule may result in additional
     manufacturers. The expected change in                   VOC. It is estimated that CO emission                  health impacts from increased ambient
     production of affected output is a                      reductions total approximately 10,000                  PM and ozone from these increased


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00028   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                                Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                 1303

     utility emissions. We did not quantify or                  changes in health and environmental                      A full listing of the benefit categories
     monetize these impacts.                                    effects, such as potential increases in               that could not be quantified or
        Every benefit-cost analysis examining                   premature mortality associated with                   monetized in our analysis are provided
     the potential effects of a change in                       increased exposure to carbon monoxide.                in Table 3 of this preamble. A full
     environmental protection requirements                      Deficiencies in the economics literature              appreciation of the overall economic
     is limited to some extent by data gaps,                    often result in the inability to assign               consequences of the proposed PCWP
     limitations in model capabilities (such                    economic values even to those health                  standards requires consideration of all
     as geographic coverage), and                               and environmental outcomes which can                  benefits and costs expected to result
     uncertainties in the underlying                            be quantified. These general                          from today’s proposed rule, not just
     scientific and economic studies used to                    uncertainties in the underlying
                                                                                                                      those benefits and costs which could be
     configure the benefit and cost models.                     scientific and economics literatures are
                                                                                                                      expressed here in dollar terms.
     Deficiencies in the scientific literature                  discussed in detail in the RIA and its
     often result in the inability to estimate                  supporting documents and references.

           TABLE 3.—UNQUANTIFIED BENEFIT CATEGORIES FROM HAP, OZONE-RELATED, AND PM EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
                                                    Unquantified effect categories as-      Unquantified effect categories as-     Unquantified effect categories as-
                                                          sociated with HAP                      sociated with ozone                      sociated with PM

     Health Categories ..........................   Carcinogenicity          mortality,     Airway     responsiveness,     Pul-    Premature     mortality,   Chronic
                                                     Genotoxicity mortality, Non-             monary inflammation, Increased         bronchitis, Hospital admissions
                                                     cancer lethality, Pulmonary              susceptibility to respiratory in-      for chronic obstructive pul-
                                                     function, decrement, Dermal ir-          fection, Acute inflamation and         monary disease, pneumonia,
                                                     ritation,      Eye      irritation,      respiratory cell damage, Chron-        cardiovascular diseases, and
                                                     Neurotoxicity, Immunotoxicity,           ic    respiratory   damage/Pre-        asthma, Changes in pulmonary
                                                     Pulmonary function decrement,            mature aging of lungs, Emer-           function,          Morphological
                                                     Liver damage, Gastrointestinal           gency room visits for asthma,          changes, Altered host defense
                                                     toxicity, Kidney damage, Car-            Hospital admissions for res-           mechanisms, Cancer, Other
                                                     diovascular          impairment,         piratory diseases, Asthma at-          chronic respiratory disease,
                                                     Hematopoietic      (Blood      dis-      tacks, Minor restricted activity       Emergency room visits for asth-
                                                     orders), Reproductive/Develop-           days.                                  ma, Lower and upper res-
                                                     mental toxicity.                                                                piratory symptoms, Acute bron-
                                                                                                                                     chitis, Shortness of breath,
                                                                                                                                     Minor restricted activity days,
                                                                                                                                     Asthma attacks, Work loss
                                                                                                                                     days.
     Welfare Categories ........................    Corrosion/Deterioration, Unpleas-       Ecosystem and vegetation effects       Materials damage, Damage to
                                                     ant odors, Transportation safety         in Class I areas (e.g., national       ecosystems (e.g., acid sulfate
                                                     concerns, Yield reductions/              parks), Damage to urban                deposition), Nitrates in drinking
                                                     Foliar injury, Biomass decrease,         ornamentals (e.g., grass, flow-        water.
                                                     Species richness decline, Spe-           ers, shrubs, and trees in urban
                                                     cies diversity decline, Commu-           areas), Commercial field crops,
                                                     nity size decrease, Organism             Fruit and vegetable crops, Re-
                                                     lifespan, decrease, Trophic web          duced yields of tree seedlings,
                                                     shortening.                              commercial and non-commer-
                                                                                              cial forests, Damage to eco-
                                                                                              systems, Materials damage,
                                                                                              Reduced worker productivity.



     V. Relationship to Other Standards and                     coatings, company logos, trademark or                 preamble to the final rule (60 FR 62936,
     Programs Under the CAA and Other                           grade stamps, nail lines, synthetic                   December 7, 1995), we stated that wood
     Statutes                                                   patches, wood patches, wood putty,                    furniture manufacturing operations
                                                                concrete forming oils, glues for veneer               involving urea-formaldehyde resins
     A. Wood Building Products Surface
                                                                composing, and shelving edge fillers. In              were excluded from the Wood Furniture
     Coating NESHAP Proposal
                                                                addition, miscellaneous coating                       Manufacturing Operations NESHAP and
        The proposed PCWP rule includes                         operations also include the application               would be covered by the proposed
     some miscellaneous coating operations                      of primer to OSB siding that occurs at                PCWP rule. Today’s proposed rule
     that are performed where the substrate                     the same site as the OSB manufacture.                 covers manufacturing operations at
     is manufactured. We included these                                                                               wood furniture manufacturing facilities
                                                                B. Wood Furniture Manufacturing
     miscellaneous coating operations in the                                                                          that use urea-formaldehyde resins.
                                                                Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63,
     proposed PCWP rule instead of the                                                                                These operations include, but are not
                                                                Subpart JJ)
     upcoming Wood Building Products                                                                                  limited to, the manufacture of hardwood
     Surface Coating NESHAP (40 CFR part                          The Wood Furniture Manufacturing                    plywood, particleboard, and medium
     63, subpart QQQQ) so that most                             Operations NESHAP apply to wood                       density fiberboard, all of which are
     facilities would be subject to only one                    furniture manufacturing facilities that               included in the definition of a PCWP
     of the rules. The miscellaneous coating                    are engaged, either in part or in whole,              manufacturing facility. Although some
     operations proposed today include the                      in the manufacture of wood furniture or               wood furniture plants may be subject to
     application of any of the following to                     wood furniture components that are                    both the Wood Furniture Manufacturing
     plywood or composite wood products:                        located at a plant site that is a major               Operations NESHAP and today’s
     edge seals, moisture sealants, anti-skid                   source of HAP emissions. In the                       proposed rule, there are no overlapping


VerDate Dec<13>2002     16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00029   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1304                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     requirements for individual process                     provided guidance to permitting                        E. Interrelationship Between MACT
     units.                                                  authorities on the approvability of PCP                Provisions and PSD
     C. Combustion Related NESHAP                            exclusions for source categories other                    We have received comments from
                                                             than electric utilities. In that guidance              some in industry who would like to use
        Plywood and composite wood                           (available on the TTN; see ‘‘Pollution
     products facilities operate combustion                                                                         the provisions of the proposed PCWP
                                                             Control Projects and New Source                        rule to satisfy requirements for PSD.
     units such as boilers, fuel cells, and                  Review (NSR) Applicability’’ from John
     thermal oil heaters that supply heat to                                                                        While many of the proposed PCWP
                                                             S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to EPA                      provisions for HAP may be used to
     process units such as dryers and presses                Regional Air Division Directors), we
     that are used in the manufacture of                                                                            comply with PSD, the PCWP provisions
                                                             indicated that add-on controls and fuel                are not universally applicable. In cases
     PCWP. When the combustion unit
                                                             switches to less polluting fuels may                   where one rule is more stringent than
     supplies heat by directly exhausting the
                                                             qualify for an exclusion from major NSR                the other, you must comply with both
     combustion gas through a dryer, the
                                                             as a PCP. To be eligible to be excluded                rules.
     dryer is considered a ‘‘direct-fired
     dryer.’’ Therefore, the HAP emissions                   from otherwise applicable major NSR                       We do not usually state this explicitly
     from a direct-fired dryer are actually a                requirements, a PCP must, on balance,                  in rule preambles because it is
     combination of the emissions from the                   be ‘‘environmentally beneficial,’’ and                 established as a matter of law and
     combustion unit exhausting into the                     the permitting authority must ensure                   precedence. However, because of some
     dryer and the emissions that result from                that the project will not cause or                     misunderstandings from some in
     drying the wood. Because today’s                        contribute to a violation of the NAAQS                 industry and our on-going enforcement
     proposed rule regulates emissions from                  or PSD increment, or adversely affect                  review of PSD compliance in the PCWP
     direct-fired dryers, those combustion                   visibility or other air quality related                industry, we believe it is helpful to
     units associated with direct-fired dryers               values (AQRV) in a Class I area, and that              discuss areas where the proposed PCWP
     are excluded from the requirements of                   offsetting reductions are secured in the               rule and PSD may have different
     other combustion-related NESHAP,                        case of a project which would result in                requirements.
     such as the Industrial/Commercial/                      a significant increase of a nonattainment                 First, the proposed PCWP rule is a
     Institutional Boilers NESHAP and the                    pollutant. The permitting authority can                rule that would regulate HAP. Decisions
     Process Heaters NESHAP. However,                        make these determinations outside of                   on control levels and compliance
     those combustion units that supply heat                 the major NSR process. The 1994                        demonstrations are based on HAP
     or steam to indirect-fired dryers or                    guidance did not supercede existing                    reductions. If decisions had been based
     presses (i.e., combustion unit exhaust                  NSR requirements, including approved                   on control of VOC, the control level may
     does not contact wood particles or                      State NSR programs, nor void or create                 have been different. For example, this
     veneers), and those thermal oil heaters                 an exclusion from any applicable minor                 proposed rule requires 90 percent
     that supply hot oil for presses but which               source preconstruction review                          reduction of HAP from affected process
     don’t exhaust through dryers are not                    requirements in an approved SIP. Any                   units. Prevention of significant
     covered by today’s proposed rule and                    minor NSR permitting requirements in a                 deterioration may require control
     would be subject to the requirements of                 SIP would continue to apply, regardless                efficiencies in excess of 90 percent.
     the applicable combustion related                       of any exclusion from major NSR that                   Another example is which process units
     NESHAP.                                                 might be approved for a source under                   require control. In the proposed PCWP
                                                             the PCP exclusion policy.                              rule, the level of control that represents
     D. New Source Review/Prevention of                                                                             the MACT floor for dry rotary dryers
     Significant Deterioration Applicability                    In the July 1, 1994 guidance                        and hardwood veneer dryers is no
        We expect that many of the PCWP                      memorandum, we specifically identified                 emissions reductions. We determined
     facilities impacted by today’s proposed                 the RTO as an example of an add-on                     that requiring controls was not cost
     rule will install RTOs to comply with                   control that is an appropriate candidate               effective for HAP. However, these
     the proposed HAP control requirements.                  for a case-by-case exclusion from major                process units emit more VOC than HAP;
     However, RTOs can generate NOX                          NSR as a PCP. We believe that the                      therefore, we may determine for PSD
     emissions during normal operation. If                   current guidance on the PCP exclusion                  that dry rotary dryers and hardwood
     NOX emission increases are great                        adequately provides for the possible                   veneer dryers should be controlled.
     enough, they may trigger the need for                   exemption from major NSR for PCP                          Second, we want to clarify that THC
     preconstruction permits under the                       resulting from today’s proposed rule.                  is not the same as VOC. Two of the
     nonattainment new source review (NSR)                   Permitting authorities should follow                   compliance options in the proposed
     or prevention of significant                            that guidance to the extent allowed                    PCWP rule are based on measurement of
     deterioration (PSD) program (referred to                under the applicable SIP in order to                   THC, as carbon, either with or without
     in the remainder of this preamble as                    determine whether the installation of an               methane, as a surrogate for measuring
     ‘‘major NSR’’). During the development                  RTO in a given circumstance qualifies                  HAP. While THC, as carbon, is a good
     of today’s proposed rule, representatives               as a PCP. Projects that qualify for the                way to determine percent reduction of
     from the PCWP industry requested that                   exclusion would be covered under                       a control device for HAP of concern for
     we consider the application of an RTO                   minor source regulations in the                        the PCWP industry, it may not be
     to reduce HAP emissions to be a                         applicable SIP, and permitting                         appropriate for VOC.
     pollution control project (PCP), as                     authorities would be expected to
                                                             provide adequate safeguards against                    F. Effluent Guidelines
     defined within the context of PSD and
     NSR, such that RTOs installed to meet                   NAAQS and increment violations and                       Effluent guidelines applicable to
     today’s proposed rule would qualify for                 adverse impacts on AQRV in Federal                     categories and subcategories of
     an exemption from NSR/PSD.                              Class I areas. Only in those areas where               industrial point sources are issued
        In 1992, the EPA adopted an explicit                 potential adverse impacts cannot be                    under authority of the Clean Water Act
     PCP exclusion for electric utility steam                resolved through the minor NSR                         (sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402,
     generating units (57 FR 32314). In a July               programs or other mechanisms would                     and 501). The current effluent
     1, 1994 guidance memorandum, we                         major NSR apply.                                       guidelines are applicable to many PCWP


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00030   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                             1305

     facilities and are found at 40 CFR part                 new information and data will be                       review by the Office of Management and
     429. Effluent limitations for a number of               considered and, if appropriate, could                  Budget (OMB) and the requirements of
     the subcategories covered in 40 CFR                     serve as the basis for amending the                    the Executive Order. The Executive
     part 429 prohibit discharge of process                  definition of process wastewater found                 Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory
     wastewater pollutants into navigable                    at 40 CFR § 429.11(c) at the time the                  action’’ as one that is likely to result in
     waters of the United States. Industry has               final PCWP MACT rule is promulgated.                   a rule that may:
     requested that we propose to amend the                  (The EPA would consider employing a                       (1) Have an annual effect on the
     effluent guidelines in 40 CFR part 429,                 direct final rule to promulgate any such               economy of $100 million or more or
     specifically the definition of process                  amendment if we receive convincing                     adversely affect in a material way the
     wastewaters at § 429.11(c), which affects               supporting information as described                    economy, a sector of the economy,
     all subparts requiring no discharge of                  above and do not receive significant                   productivity, competition, jobs, the
     process wastewater pollutants, to allow                 adverse comment on this issue in                       environment, public health or safety, or
     discharge of certain wastewaters,                       response to today’s proposed rule. If we               State, local, or tribal governments or
     specifically wastewaters associated with                do receive adverse comments, we would                  communities;
     APCD operation and maintenance, by                      need to propose the amendment prior to                    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
     excluding them from the applicability of                promulgation.) If appropriate and                      otherwise interfere with an action taken
     these subparts. Industry has asserted                   promulgated, this amendment, or a                      or planned by another agency;
     that effluent limitations for these                     similar amendment designed to achieve                     (3) Materially alter the budgetary
     wastewaters could be developed by                       the same result, would allow for the                   impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
     permit writers on a case-by-case basis                  discharge of such APCD wastewater that                 or loan programs, or the rights and
     based upon best professional judgment.                  may result from compliance with the                    obligation of recipients thereof; or
     Industry comments are in Docket                         PCWP MACT rule. We are considering                        (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
     number A–98–44.                                         an amendment to 40 CFR § 429.11(c), to                 arising out of legal mandates, the
        At this time, we are not proposing to                read as follows (amending language in                  President’s priorities, or the principles
     amend the effluent guidelines because                   italics): The term ‘‘process wastewater’’              set forth in the Executive Order.
     many PCWP facilities are disposing of                                                                             Pursuant to the terms of Executive
                                                             specifically excludes non-contact
     these wastewaters in compliance with                                                                           Order 12866, it has been determined
                                                             cooling water, material storage yard
     the existing regulations, for example, by                                                                      that this proposed rule is a ‘‘significant
                                                             runoff (either raw material or processed
     recycling them in the process or                                                                               regulatory action’’ because the annual
                                                             wood storage), boiler blowdown, and
     discharging them to a publicly owned                                                                           costs of complying with the rule as
                                                             wastewater from air pollution control
     treatment works. We lack                                                                                       proposed are expected to exceed $100
                                                             devices installed to comply with the
     comprehensive information to support                                                                           million. Consequently, this action was
                                                             proposed national emissions standards
     the industry’s suggestion that                                                                                 submitted to OMB for review under
                                                             for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)
     simultaneous compliance with the                                                                               Executive Order 12866. Any written
                                                             for plywood and composite wood
     proposed rule and the existing effluent                                                                        comments from OMB and written EPA
                                                             products (PCWP) facilities (40 CFR
     guidelines would not be possible.                                                                              responses are available in the docket
                                                             § 63.22). For the dry process hardboard,
        In order to consider industry’s                                                                             (see ADDRESSES section of this
                                                             veneer, finishing, particleboard, and
     request, we would need to obtain                                                                               preamble).
                                                             sawmills and planing mills                                We did not estimate health and
     additional and more-detailed
                                                             subcategories, fire control water is                   welfare benefits associated with changes
     information than currently available
                                                             excluded from the definition.                          in emissions of HAP, CO, VOC, PM,
     that: (1) Quantifies the volumes and
                                                                The actual discharge allowances
     pollutants present in the wastewaters                                                                          NOX and SO2 for this proposed rule.
                                                             would be determined initially on a case-
     generated by APCD used to comply with                                                                          B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
                                                             by-case basis by NPDES permitting
     the proposed rule so that comparisons
                                                             authorities using their best professional                 Executive Order 13132, entitled
     can be made with wastewaters regulated
                                                             judgment (See 40 CFR § 125.3). (In this                ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
     by the existing effluent guidelines, and
                                                             regard, the industry has suggested that                1999), requires EPA to develop an
     (2) documents the industry’s wastewater
                                                             discharge limitations could be                         accountable process to ensure
     treatment and disposal practices to
                                                             expressed in the form of allowances for                ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
     support the assertions that any
                                                             the discharges attributable to the                     and local officials in the development of
     additional APCD wastewaters that may
     not have been considered in the original                proposed PCWP MACT rule.) If we                        regulatory policies that have federalism
     rulemaking for part 429 are not or could                promulgate an amendment to part 429                    implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
     not be disposed of in a manner                          of the type described above at the time                federalism implications’’ is defined in
     compliant with the existing effluent                    we promulgate the final PCWP MACT                      the Executive Order to include
     guidelines. We are requesting comment                   rule, we will consider, through the CWA                regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
     and additional detailed information and                 section 304(m) planning process,                       effects on the States, on the relationship
     supporting data from interested parties                 whether it is appropriate to revise part               between the national government and
     on whether 40 CFR part 429, subparts B,                 429 at a later time in order to establish              the States, or on the distribution of
     C, D, F, K, L, M, and O, should be                      category-or subcategory-specific effluent              power and responsibilities among the
     amended by revising the applicability of                limitations and standards for such                     various levels of government.’’ Under
     any or all of these subparts requiring no               APCD wastewater discharges.                            Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
     discharge of process wastewater                         VI. Administrative Requirements                        issue a regulation that has federalism
     pollutants (i.e., by changing the                                                                              implications, that imposes substantial
     definition of process wastewater at                     A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory                   direct compliance costs, and that is not
     § 429.11(c)), such that the effluent                    Planning and Review                                    required by statute, unless the Federal
     guidelines would not apply to                              Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR                  government provides the funds
     wastewater produced by operation or                     51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must                  necessary to pay the direct compliance
     maintenance of APCD that are used to                    determine whether the regulatory action                costs incurred by State and local
     comply with the proposed rule. Any                      is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to            governments, or EPA consults with


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00031   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1306                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     State and local officials early in the                  to develop an accountable process to                   E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
     process of developing the proposed                      ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by                1995
     regulation. The EPA also may not issue                  tribal officials in the development of                    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
     a regulation that has federalism                        regulatory policies that have tribal                   Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
     implications and that preempts State                    implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal            104–4, establishes requirements for
     law unless the Agency consults with                     implications’’ is defined in the                       Federal agencies to assess the effects of
     State and local officials early in the                  Executive Order to include regulations                 their regulatory actions on State, local,
     process of developing the proposed                      that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on              and tribal governments and the private
     regulation.                                             one or more Indian tribes, on the                      sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
        If EPA complies by consulting,
                                                             relationship between the Federal                       the EPA generally must prepare a
     Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
                                                             government and the Indian tribes, or on                written statement, including a cost-
     provide to OMB, in a separately
     identified section of the preamble to the               the distribution of power and                          benefit analysis, for proposed and final
     rule, a federalism summary impact                       responsibilities between the Federal                   rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
     statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include                 government and Indian tribes.’’                        result in expenditures by State, local,
     a description of the extent of EPA’s                                                                           and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or
                                                                This proposed rule does not have
     prior consultation with State and local                                                                        by the private sector, of $100 million or
                                                             tribal implications. It will not have
     officials, a summary of the nature of                                                                          more in any 1 year. Before promulgating
                                                             substantial direct effects on tribal                   an EPA rule for which a written
     their concerns and the agency’s position                governments, on the relationship
     supporting the need to issue the                                                                               statement is needed, section 205 of the
                                                             between the Federal government and                     UMRA generally requires the EPA to
     regulation, and a statement of the extent               Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
     to which the concerns of State and local                                                                       identify and consider a reasonable
                                                             power and responsibilities between the                 number of regulatory alternatives and
     officials have been met. Also, when EPA                 Federal government and Indian tribes,
     transmits a draft final rule with                                                                              adopt the least-costly, most cost-
                                                             as specified in Executive Order 13175.                 effective, or least-burdensome
     federalism implications to OMB for
                                                             No affected plant sites are owned or                   alternative that achieves the objectives
     review pursuant to Executive Order
     12866, EPA must include a certification                 operated by Indian tribal governments.                 of the rule. The provisions of section
     from the Agency’s Federalism Official                   Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not                   205 do not apply when they are
     stating that EPA has met the                            apply to this rule. In the spirit of                   inconsistent with applicable law.
     requirements of Executive Order 13132                   Executive Order 13175, and consistent                  Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to
     in a meaningful and timely manner.                      with EPA policy to promote                             adopt an alternative other than the least-
        This proposed rule will not have                     communications between EPA and                         costly, most cost-effective, or least-
     substantial direct effects on the States,               tribal governments, EPA specifically                   burdensome alternative if the
     on the relationship between the national                solicits additional comment on this                    Administrator publishes with the final
     government and the States, or on the                    proposed rule from tribal officials.                   rule an explanation why that alternative
     distribution of power and                                                                                      was not adopted. Before the EPA
     responsibilities among the various                      D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of                establishes any regulatory requirements
     levels of government, as specified in                   Children From Environmental Health                     that may significantly or uniquely affect
     Executive Order 13132. The proposed                     Risks and Safety Risks                                 small governments, including tribal
     rule would not impose directly                                                                                 governments, it must have developed
                                                               Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,                  under section 203 of the UMRA a small
     enforceable requirements on States, nor
                                                             April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:              government agency plan. The plan must
     would it preempt them from adopting
     their own more stringent programs to                    (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically                 provide for notifying potentially
     control emissions from PCWP facilities.                 significant,’’ as defined under Executive              affected small governments, enabling
     Moreover, States are not required under                 Order 12866, and (2) concerns an                       officials of affected small governments
     the CAA to take delegation of Federal                   environmental health or safety risk that               to have meaningful and timely input in
     NESHAP and bear their implementation                    EPA has reason to believe may have a                   the development of EPA regulatory
     costs, although States are encouraged                   disproportionate effect on children. If                proposals with significant Federal
     and often choose to do so. Thus, the                    the regulatory action meets both criteria,             intergovernmental mandates, and
     requirements of section 6 of the                        the EPA must evaluate the                              informing, educating, and advising
     Executive Order do not apply to this                    environmental health or safety effects of              small governments on compliance with
     proposed rule. Although section 6 of                    the planned rule on children and                       the regulatory requirements.
     Executive Order 13132 does not apply                    explain why the planned regulation is                     Since this rule is estimated to impose
     to this proposed rule, EPA is providing                 preferable to other potentially effective              costs to the private sector in excess of
     State and local officials an opportunity                and reasonably feasible alternatives                   $100 million per year, it is considered
     to comment on this proposed rule. A                     considered by the Agency.                              a significant regulatory action.
     summary of the concerns raised during                                                                          Therefore, we have prepared the
                                                               The Agency does not have reason to
     the notice and comment process and                                                                             following statement with respect to
                                                             believe the environmental health or                    sections 202 through 205 of the UMRA.
     EPA’s response to those concerns will
                                                             safety risks associated with the
     be provided in the final rulemaking                                                                            1. Statutory Authority
     notice.                                                 emissions addressed by this proposed
                                                             rule present a disproportionate risk to                  This proposed rule establishes control
     C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation                  children. The public is invited to submit              requirements for existing and new
     and Coordination With Indian Tribal                     or identify peer-reviewed studies and                  PCWP sources pursuant to section 112
     Governments                                             data, of which the Agency may not be                   of the CAA. The CAA requires NESHAP
        Executive Order 13175, entitled                      aware, that assess the results of early life           to reflect the maximum degree of
     ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with                    exposure to the pollutants addressed by                reduction in emissions of HAP that is
     Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR                      this proposed rule and suggest a                       achievable. This is commonly referred
     67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA                  disproportionate impact.                               to as MACT. Section 112(d)(3) further


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00032   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                            1307

     defines a minimum level of control that                    At the present time, we cannot                      increase in employment among firms in
     can be considered for MACT standards,                   provide a monetary estimate for the                    these industries that do not incur any
     commonly referred to as the MACT                        benefits associated with the reductions                cost associated with the proposed rule.
     floor—which for new sources, is the                     in HAP and CO. For VOC, we are not                     There is also minimal change in the
     level of control achieved by the best                   able to estimate the benefits associated               foreign trade behavior for the firms in
     controlled similar source, and for                      with the reductions due to a lack of                   these industries since the level of
     existing sources is the level of control                available air quality modeling to                      imports of affected composite wood
     achieved by the average of the best                     estimate the change in ozone                           products only increases by less than 0.1
     performing 12 percent of sources in the                 concentrations that occur with VOC                     percent.
     category (or the best-performing five                   emissions reductions. We estimated the
                                                                                                                    5. Consultation With Government
     sources for categories with fewer than                  benefits associated with health effects of
                                                                                                                    Officials
     30 sources).                                            PM10 but were unable to quantify all
        Control technologies and their                       categories of benefits (particularly those                Throughout the development of this
     performance are discussed in the                        associated with ecosystem and                          proposed rule, we interacted with
     background information document for                     environmental effects). The estimated                  representatives of affected State and
     this proposal (Docket number A–98–44).                  benefits include the effects of potential              local officials to inform them of the
     We considered emission reductions,                      additional NOX emissions that result                   progress of our rulemaking efforts. We
     costs, environmental impacts, and                       from additional combustion controls.                   also consulted with representatives from
     energy impacts in selecting the                         The estimates of the potential additional              other entities affected by the proposed
                                                             NOX emissions are presented in Section                 rule, such as the American Forest &
     proposed MACT standards. The
                                                             IV of this preamble. Nitrogen oxides are               Paper Association, National Council for
     proposed standards achieve sizable
                                                             transformed into PM10 in the                           Air and Stream Improvement, APA—
     reductions in HAP and other pollutant
                                                             atmosphere, and these emissions hence                  The Engineered Wood Association,
     emissions.
                                                             offset the benefits from the PM10                      Composite Panel Association, American
     2. Social Costs and Benefits                            reductions mentioned above. Total                      Hardboard Association, Hardwood
                                                             monetized benefits for the PME10 and                   Plywood and Veneer Association, and
       The regulatory analyses prepared for
                                                             NOX emissions changes using our                        representatives from affected
     this proposed rule, including our
                                                             preferred approach to value benefits is                companies. We will continue to interact
     assessment of costs and benefits, is
                                                             $8.5 million (1999 dollars), and $5.3                  with government officials and other
     detailed in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact                                                                            entities during the public comment
     Analysis for the Proposed Plywood and                   million (1999 dollars) using an
                                                             alternative age-adjusted approach                      period for this proposed rule and
     Composite Wood Products NESHAP’’ in                                                                            throughout development of the
     Docket A–98–44. Based on estimated                      recommended by others. The two
                                                             approaches to valuing benefits is                      promulgated PCWP standards.
     compliance costs associated with this                                                                             The number of small entities that are
     proposed rule and the predicted change                  discussed in more detail in this
                                                             preamble in the Executive Order 12866                  significantly affected by today’s
     in prices and production in the affected                                                                       proposed PCWP standards is not
     industries, the estimated social costs of               section and in the Regulatory Impact
                                                             Analysis. The monetized benefits                       expected to be substantial. This
     this proposed rule are $134.2 million                                                                          proposed rule contains no regulatory
                                                             should be considered along with the
     (1999 dollars). The social costs of this                                                                       requirements that might significantly
                                                             many categories of benefits that we are
     proposed rule are the costs imposed                                                                            affect small governments because no
                                                             unable to place a dollar value on to
     upon society as a result of efforts toward                                                                     PCWP facilities are owned by such
                                                             consider the total benefits of this
     compliance, and include the effects                                                                            governments. The full analysis of
                                                             proposed rule.
     upon consumers of products made by                                                                             potential regulatory impacts on small
     the affected facilities.                                3. Regulatory Alternatives Considered                  organizations, small governments, and
       It is estimated that 3 years after                       The proposed standards reflect the                  small businesses is included in the
     implementation of the requirements as                   MACT floor, the least stringent                        economic impact analysis in the docket
     proposed, HAP would be reduced by                       regulatory alternative we may propose.                 and is listed at the beginning of today’s
     9,700 Mg/yr (11,000 tons/yr) due to                     In addition, we are proposing the least                action under SUPPLEMENTARY
     reductions in formaldehyde,                             burdensome and most flexible                           INFORMATION. Because the number of
     acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol and                    monitoring, reporting, and                             small entities that are likely to
     other HAP from PCWP sources.                            recordkeeping requirements that we                     experience significant economic
     Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have                      believe will assure compliance with the                impacts as a result of today’s proposed
     been classified as ‘‘probable human                     compliance options and requirements of                 standards is not expected to be
     carcinogens.’’ Acrolein, methanol and                   this proposed rule. Therefore, the                     substantial, no plan to inform and
     the other HAP are not considered                        proposed regulatory alternative reflects               advise small governments is required
     carcinogenic, but produce several other                 the least costly, most cost-effective, and             under section 203 of the UMRA.
     toxic effects. If implemented, the                      least burdensome regulatory option that
     requirements of this proposed rule                                                                             F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
                                                             achieves the objectives of the proposed
     would also achieve reductions of 10,000                                                                        Amended by the Small Business
                                                             rule.
     Mg/yr (11,000 tons/yr) of CO,                                                                                  Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
     approximately 11,000 Mg/yr (13,000                      4. Effects on the National Economy                     (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
     tons/yr) of PM10, and approximately                        The economic impact analysis for this                 The RFA generally requires an agency
     25,000 Mg/yr (27,000 tons/yr) of VOC                    proposed rule estimates effects upon                   to prepare a regulatory flexibility
     (approximated as THC). Exposure to CO                   employment and foreign trade for the                   analysis of any rule subject to notice
     can effect the cardiovascular system and                industries affected by this proposed                   and comment rulemaking requirements
     the central nervous system. The PM                      rule. The total reduction in employment                under the Administrative Procedure Act
     emissions can result in fatalities and                  for the affected industries is 0.3 percent             or any other statute unless the agency
     many respiratory problems (such as                      of the current employment level (or 225                certifies that the rule will not have a
     asthma or bronchitis).                                  employees). This estimate includes the                 significant economic impact on a


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00033   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1308                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     substantial number of small entities.                   than 1 percent of sales, only three have               G. Paperwork Reduction Act
     Small entities include small businesses,                compliance costs of greater than 3                        The information collection
     small organizations, and small                          percent of sales. Second, the results of               requirements in this proposed rule will
     governmental jurisdictions.                             the economic impact analysis show that                 be submitted for approval to OMB under
        For purposes of assessing the impacts                only one facility owned by a small firm                the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
     of today’s proposed rule on small                       out of the 32 facilities owned by affected             3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an
     entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A             small firms may close due to the                       Information Collection Request (ICR)
     small business ranging from 500 to 750                  implementation of this proposed rule.                  document (1984.01), and you may
     employees; (2) a small governmental                     The facility that may close rather than                obtain a copy from Susan Auby by mail
     jurisdiction that is a government of a                  incur the cost of compliance appears to                at Office of Environmental Information,
     city, county, town, school district or
                                                             have low profitability levels currently. It            Collection Strategies Division (2822T),
     special district with a population of less
                                                             also should be noted that the estimate                 U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
     than 50,000; and (3) a small
                                                             of compliance costs for this facility is               NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail
     organization that is any not-for-profit
     enterprise which is independently                       likely to be an overestimate due to the                at auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling
     owned and operated and is not                           lack of facility-specific data available to            (202) 566–1672. You may also
     dominant in its field.                                  assign a precise control cost in this case.            download a copy off the Internet at
        After considering the economic                       In sum, the analysis supports today’s                  http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information
     impact of today’s proposed rule on                      certification under the RFA because,                   requirements are not effective until
     small entities, we certify that this action             while a few small firms may experience                 OMB approves them.
     will not have a significant impact on a                 significant impacts, there will not be a                  The information requirements are
     substantial number of small entities. In                substantial number incurring such a                    based on notification, recordkeeping,
     accordance with the RFA, we conducted                   burden.                                                and reporting requirements in the
     an assessment of the proposed standards                                                                        NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR
                                                                Although this proposed rule will not                part 63, subpart A), which are
     on small businesses in the industries                   have a significant economic impact on
     affected by the proposed rule. Based on                                                                        mandatory for all operators subject to
                                                             a substantial number of small entities,                national emission standards. These
     SBA size definitions for the affected                   we minimized the impact of this
     industries and reported sales and                                                                              recordkeeping and reporting
                                                             proposed rule on small entities in                     requirements are specifically authorized
     employment data, the Agency identified
                                                             several ways. First, we considered                     by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C.
     17 of the 52 companies, or 32 percent,
     owning affected facilities as small                     subcategorization based on production                  7414). All information submitted to the
     businesses. Although small businesses                   and throughput level to determine                      EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and
     represent 32 percent of the companies                   whether smaller process units would                    reporting requirements for which a
     within the source category, they are                    have a different MACT floor than larger                claim of confidentiality is made is
     expected to incur only 8 percent of the                 process units. Our data show that                      safeguarded according to Agency
     total industry compliance costs of $142                 subcategorization based on size would                  policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,
     million. There are only three small firms               not result in a less stringent level of                subpart B.
     with compliance costs equal to or                       control for the smaller process units.                    The proposed rule would require
     greater than 3 percent of their sales. In               Second, we chose to set the control                    maintenance inspections of the control
     addition, there are seven small firms                   requirements at the MACT floor control                 devices but would not require any
     with cost-to-sales ratios between 1 and                 level and not at a control level more                  notifications or reports beyond those
     3 percent.                                              stringent. Thus, the control level                     required by the NESHAP General
        We performed an economic impact                      specified in the proposed PCWP rule is                 Provisions. The recordkeeping
     analysis to estimate the changes in                     the least stringent allowed by the CAA.                requirements require only the specific
     product price and production quantities                 Third, the proposed rule contains                      information needed to determine
     for the firms affected by this proposed                 multiple compliance options to provide                 compliance.
     rule. The analysis shows that of the 32                 facilities with the flexibility to comply                 The annual monitoring, reporting, and
     facilities owned by affected small firms,               in the least costly manner while                       recordkeeping burden for this collection
     only one would be expected to shut                                                                             (averaged over the first 3 years after the
                                                             maintaining a workable and enforceable
     down rather than incur the cost of                                                                             effective date of the rule) is estimated to
                                                             rule. The compliance options include
     compliance with the proposed rule.                                                                             be 4,658 labor hours per year, at a total
                                                             emissions averaging and production-
     Although any facility closure is cause                                                                         annual cost of $207,322. This estimate
                                                             based compliance options which allow                   includes notifications that facilities are
     for concern, it should be noted that the
                                                             inherently low-emitting process units to               subject to the rule; notifications of
     baseline economic condition of the
                                                             comply without installing add-on                       performance tests; notifications of
     facilities predicted to close affects the
     closure estimate provided by the                        control devices and facilities to use                  compliance status, including the results
     economic model. Facilities which are                    innovative technology and pollution                    of performance tests and other initial
     already experiencing adverse economic                   prevention methods. Fourth, the                        compliance demonstrations that do not
     conditions for reasons unconnected to                   proposed rule includes multiple test                   include performance tests; startup,
     this proposed rule are more vulnerable                  method options for measuring                           shutdown, and malfunction reports;
     to the impact of any new costs than                     methanol, formaldehyde, and total HAP.                 semiannual compliance reports; and
     those that are not.                                     In addition, we worked with various                    recordkeeping. In addition to the
        The analysis indicates that the                      trade associations during the                          requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
     proposed rule should not generate a                     development of the proposed rule. We                   A, facilities that wish to implement
     significant impact on a substantial                     continue to be interested in the                       emissions averaging provisions must
     number of small entities for the PCWP                   potential impacts of the proposed rule                 submit an emissions averaging plan.
     manufacturing source category for the                   on small entities and welcome                          Facilities may also submit a request for
     following reasons. First, of the ten small              comments on issues related to such                     a routine control device maintenance
     firms that have compliance costs greater                impacts.                                               exemption to justify the need for routine


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00034   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                             1309

     maintenance on the control device and                   Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113)                  method other than Method 301, 40 CFR
     to show how the facilities plan to                      (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs us to use                 part 63, appendix A, was used).
     minimize emissions to the greatest                      voluntary consensus standards in our                      Table 4 of proposed subpart DDDD
     extent possible during the maintenance.                 regulatory and procurement activities                  lists the testing methods and
     Total capital/startup costs associated                  unless to do so would be inconsistent                  performance standards included in the
     with the testing, monitoring, reporting,                with applicable law or otherwise                       proposed regulations. Several of the
     and recordkeeping requirements over                     impractical. Voluntary consensus                       methods have been used by States and
     the 3-year period of the ICR are                        standards are technical standards (e.g.,               industry for more than 10 years.
     estimated to be $122,040, with                          materials specifications, test methods,                Nevertheless, under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and
     operation and maintenance costs of                      sampling procedures, business                          (f), the proposal also allows any State or
     $3,957.                                                 practices) developed or adopted by one                 source to apply to EPA for permission
        Burden means the total time, effort, or              or more voluntary consensus bodies.                    to use an alternative method in place of
     financial resources expended by persons                 The NTTAA directs us to provide                        any of the EPA testing methods or
     to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose              Congress, through annual reports to the                performance standards listed in Table 4
     or provide information to or for a                      OMB, with explanations when we do                      of proposed subpart DDDD.
     Federal agency. This includes the time                  not use available and applicable                       I. Executive Order 13211, Actions
     needed to: (1) Review instructions; (2)                 voluntary consensus standards.                         Concerning Regulations That
     develop, acquire, install, and utilize                    In this proposed rule, we are                        Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
     technology and systems for the purposes                 proposing requirements to use EPA                      Distribution, or Use
     of collecting, validating, and verifying                Methods 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 2c, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3,
     information, processing and                                                                                       Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
                                                             3a, 3b, 4, 18, 25a, 204, 204(a–f), 308,
     maintaining information, and disclosing                                                                        Concerning Regulations That
                                                             316, 320, and SW 846 0011, and the
     and providing information; (3) adjust                                                                          Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
                                                             NCASI methods previously discussed in
     the existing ways to comply with any                                                                           Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
                                                             this preamble. Consistent with the                     22, 2001), provides that agencies shall
     previously applicable instructions and                  NTTAA, we conducted searches to
     requirements; (4) train personnel to be                                                                        prepare and submit to the Administrator
                                                             identify voluntary consensus standards                 of the Office of Information and
     able to respond to a collection of                      that could be used in addition to the
     information; (5) search data sources; (6)                                                                      Regulatory Affairs, Office of
                                                             EPA methods.                                           Management and Budget, a Statement of
     complete and review the collection of
                                                               No voluntary consensus standards                     Energy Effects for certain actions
     information; and (7) transmit or
                                                             were identified as applicable to this                  identified as ‘‘significant energy
     otherwise disclose the information.
        An agency may not conduct or                         proposed rule. For EPA Methods 1a, 2a,                 actions.’’ Section 4(b) of Executive
     sponsor, and a person is not required to                2d, 2f, 2g, 204, 204a–f, 308, 316, and SW              Order 13211 defines ‘‘significant energy
     respond to, a collection of information                 846 0011, no applicable voluntary                      actions’’ as ‘‘any action by an agency
     unless it displays a currently valid OMB                consensus standards were found. The                    (normally published in the Federal
     control number. The OMB control                         search and review results are                          Register) that promulgates or is
     numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed                documented in Docket A–98–44. For                      expected to lead to the promulgation of
     in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.                 EPA Methods 1, 2, 2c, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 18,                a final rule or regulation, including
        Comments are requested on the                        and 25a, we identified voluntary                       notices of inquiry, advance notices of
     Agency’s need for this information, the                 consensus standards that would not be                  proposed rulemaking, and notices of
     accuracy of the provided burden                         practical due to lack of equivalency,                  proposed rulemaking: (1) (i) That is a
     estimates, and any suggested methods                    detail, and/or quality assurance/quality               significant regulatory action under
     for minimizing respondent burden,                       control requirements. Specific reasons                 Executive Order 12866 or any successor
     including through the use of automated                  why the voluntary consensus standards                  order, and (ii) is likely to have a
     collection techniques. Send comments                    are not practical are detailed in Docket               significant adverse effect on the supply,
     on the ICR to the Director, Collection                  A–98–44. For EPA Methods 2, 3a, 25a,                   distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that
     Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental                 and 320, we identified voluntary                       is designated by the Administrator of
     Protection Agency (2822); 1200                          consensus standards that are under                     the Office of Information and Regulatory
     Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,                     development or under EPA review.                       Affairs as a significant energy action.’’
     DC 20460; and to the Office of                          These voluntary consensus standards                    The proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant
     Information and Regulatory Affairs,                     are listed in Docket A–98–44. Therefore,               energy action’’ because it is not likely to
     Office of Management and Budget, 725                    we do not propose to use any voluntary                 have a significant adverse effect on the
     17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503,                    consensus standards.                                   supply, distribution, or use of energy.
     marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for                      We are requesting comment on                         The basis for the determination is as
     EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any                    compliance demonstration requirements                  follows.
     correspondence. Since OMB is required                   in this proposed rule and specifically                    This proposed rule affects
     to make a decision concerning the ICR                   invite you to identify potentially-                    manufacturers in the softwood veneer
     between 30 and 60 days after January 9,                 applicable voluntary consensus                         and plywood (NAICS 321212),
     2003, a comment to OMB is best assured                  standards. You should explain why this                 reconstituted wood products (NAICS
     of having its full effect if OMB receives               regulation should adopt a particular                   321219), and engineered wood products
     it by February 10, 2003. The final rule                 voluntary consensus standard in lieu of                (NAICS 321213) industries. There is no
     will respond to any OMB or public                       or in addition to EPA’s methods and/or                 crude oil, fuel, or coal production from
     comments on the information collection                  the NCASI methods. Emission test                       these industries. Hence, there is no
     requirements contained in this proposal.                methods and performance specifications                 direct effect on such energy production
                                                             submitted for evaluation should be                     related to implementation of this
     H. National Technology Transfer and                     accompanied with a basis for the                       proposal. In fact, as previously
     Advancement Act of 1995                                 recommendation, including method                       mentioned in this preamble, there will
       Section 12(d) of the National                         validation data and the procedure used                 be an increase in energy consumption,
     Technology Transfer and Advancement                     to validate the candidate method (if                   and hence an increase in energy


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00035   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1310                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     production, resulting from installation                 producers. These results also account                  1998, IBR approved for proposed
     of RTO and WESP likely needed for                       for how energy use is related to product               § 63.2262.
     sources to meet the requirements of the                 output for the affected industries.12 For                 (3) NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–
     proposed rule. This increase in energy                  more information on the estimated                      99.01, Impinger/Canister Source
     consumption is equal to 718 million                     energy effects, please refer to the                    Sampling Method For Speciated HAPs
     kilowatt-hours/year (kWh/yr) for                        background memo 13 to these                            at Wood Products Facilities, 1999, IBR
     electricity and 45 million cubic meters/                calculations and the economic impact                   approved for proposed § 63.2262.
     year (m3/yr) for natural gas. These                     analysis for the proposed rule. The                    *      *     *     *   *
     increases are equivalent to 0.012 percent               background memo and economic impact                       3. Part 63 is amended by adding
     of 1998 U.S. electricity production and                 analysis are available in the public                   subpart DDDD to read as follows:
     0.000001 percent of 1998 U.S. natural                   docket.                                                Subpart DDDD—National Emission
     gas production.10 It should be noted,                      Therefore, we conclude that the rule                Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
     however, that the reduction in demand                   if implemented as proposed is not likely               Plywood and Composite Wood Products
     for product output from these industries                to have a significant adverse effect on
     may lead to a negative indirect effect on               the supply, distribution, or use of                    What This Subpart Covers
     such energy production, for the output                  energy.                                                Sec.
     reduction will lead to less energy use by                                                                      63.2230 What is the purpose of this
     these industries and thus some                          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63                          subpart?
     reduction in overall energy production.                   Environmental protection,                            63.2231 Does this subpart apply to me?
        For fuel production, the result of this                                                                     63.2232 What parts of my plant does this
                                                             Administrative practice and procedure,
                                                                                                                         subpart cover?
     indirect effect from reduced product                    Air pollution control, Hazardous                       63.2233 When do I have to comply with
     output is a reduction of only about 1                   substances, Intergovernmental relations,                    this subpart?
     barrel per day nationwide, or a 0.00001                 Incorporation by reference, Reporting
     percent reduction nationwide based on                   and recordkeeping requirements.                        Compliance Options, Operating
     1998 U.S. fuel production data.11 For                                                                          Requirements, and Work Practice
                                                               Dated: November 26, 2002.                            Requirements
     coal production, the resulting indirect
                                                             Christine Todd Whitman,                                63.2240 What are the compliance options
     effect from reduced product output is a
     reduction of only 2,000 tons per year                   Administrator.                                             and operating requirements and how
                                                                                                                        must I meet them?
     nationwide, or only a 0.00001 percent                     For the reasons stated in the                        63.2241 What are the work practice
     reduction nationwide based on 1998                      preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of                  requirements and how must I meet
     U.S. coal production data. For                          the Code of Federal Regulations is                         them?
     electricity production, the resulting                   proposed to be amended as follows:
     indirect effect from reduced product                                                                           General Compliance Requirements
     output is a reduction of 42.8 million                   PART 63—[AMENDED]                                      63.2250 What are the requirements for
     kWh/yr, or only a 0.00013 percent                                                                                  periods of startup, shutdown, and
                                                               1. The authority citation for part 63                    malfunction?
     reduction nationwide based on 1998                      continues to read as follows:                          63.2251 What are the requirements for the
     U.S. electricity production data. Given                                                                            routine control device maintenance
     that the estimated price increase for                     Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
                                                                                                                        exemption
     product output from any of the affected
     industries is no more than 2.5 percent,                 Subpart A—[Amended]                                    Initial Compliance Requirements
     there should be no price increase for                      2. Section 63.14 is amended by                      63.2260 How do I demonstrate initial
     any energy type by more than this                       revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:                  compliance with the compliance
     amount. The cost of energy distribution                                                                             options, operating requirements, and
                                                             § 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
     should not be affected by this proposal                                                                             work practice requirements?
                                                             *      *     *    *     *                              63.2261 By what date must I conduct
     at all since the rule does not affect                      (f) The following material is available                  performance tests or other initial
     energy distribution facilities. Finally,                from the National Council of the Paper                      compliance demonstrations?
     with changes in net exports being a                     Industry for Air and Stream                            63.2262 How do I conduct performance
     minimal percentage of domestic output                   Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), Methods                          tests and establish operating
     (0.01 percent) from the affected                        Manual, P.O. Box 133318, Research                           requirements?
     industries, there will be only a                        Triangle Park, NC 27709–3318, (919)                    63.2263 Initial compliance demonstration
     negligible change in international trade,                                                                           for a dry rotary dryer.
                                                             558–1987, or at http://www.ncasi.org.                  63.2264 Initial compliance demonstration
     and hence in dependence on foreign                         (1) NCASI Method DI/MEOH–94.02,
     energy supplies. No other adverse                                                                                   for a hardwood veneer dryer.
                                                             Methanol in Process Liquids GC/FID                     63.2265 Initial compliance demonstration
     outcomes are expected to occur with                     (Gas Chromatography/Flame Ionization                        for a softwood veneer dryer.
     regards to energy supplies.Thus, the net                Detection), August 1998, IBR approved                  63.2266 Initial compliance demonstration
     effect of this proposed rule on energy                  for § 63.457(c)(3)(ii).                                     for a veneer redryer.
     production is an increase in electricity                   (2) NCASI Method CI/WP–98.01,                       63.2267 Initial compliance demonstration
     output of 0.012 percent compared to                     Chilled Impinger Method For Use At                          for a reconstituted wood product press or
     1998 output data, and a negligible                      Wood Products Mills to Measure                              board cooler.
     change in output of other energy types.                 Formaldehyde, Methanol, and Phenol,                    63.2268 What are my monitoring
     All of the results presented above                                                                                  installation, operation, and maintenance
     account for the passthrough of costs to                                                                             requirements?
                                                                12 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
     consumers, as well as the cost impact to                Administration. 1998 Manufacturing Energy              Continuous Compliance Requirements
                                                             Consumption Survey. Located on the Internet at
       10 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information      http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs98/
                                                                                                                    63.2270 How do I monitor and collect data
     Administration. Annual Energy Review, End-Use           datatables/contents.html.                                  to demonstrate continuous compliance?
     Energy Consumption for 1998. Located on the                13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.            63.2271 How do I demonstrate continuous
     Internet at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/            ‘‘Energy Impact Analysis of the Proposed Plywood           compliance with the compliance
     enduse.html.                                            and Composite Wood Products NESHAP.’’ July 30,             options, operating requirements, and
       11 Ibid.                                              2001.                                                      work practice requirements?



VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00036   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                              1311

     Notifications, Reports, and Records                        (a) You own or operate a plywood and                   (c) An affected source is a new
     63.2280 What notifications must I submit                composite wood products (PCWP)                         affected source if you commenced
         and when?                                           manufacturing facility. A PCWP                         construction of the affected source after
     63.2281 What reports must I submit and                  manufacturing facility is a plant site that            January 9, 2003 and you meet the
         when?                                               manufactures plywood and/or                            applicability criteria at the time you
     63.2282 What records must I keep?                       composite wood products by bonding
     63.2283 In what form and how long must I                                                                       commenced construction.
                                                             wood material (fibers, particles, strands,
         keep my records?                                                                                              (d) An affected source is
                                                             veneers, etc.) or agricultural fiber,
     Other Requirements and Information                      generally with resin under heat and                    reconstructed if you meet the criteria as
     63.2290 What parts of the General                       pressure, to form a structural panel or                defined in § 63.2.
         Provisions apply to me?                             engineered wood product. Plywood and                      (e) An affected source is existing if it
     63.2291 Who implements and enforces this                composite wood products                                is not new or reconstructed.
         subpart?                                            manufacturing facilities also include
     63.2292 What definitions apply to this                  facilities that manufacture dry veneer                 § 63.2233 When do I have to comply with
         subpart?                                            and lumber kilns located at any facility.              this subpart?
     Tables                                                  Plywood and composite wood products                       (a) If you have a new or reconstructed
     Table 1A to Subpart DDDD—Production-                    include (but are not limited to)                       affected source, you must comply with
         Based Compliance Options                            plywood, veneer, particleboard,                        this subpart according to paragraph
     Table 1B to Subpart DDDD—Add-On Control                 oriented strandboard, hardboard,                       (a)(1) or (2) of this section, whichever is
         Systems Compliance Options                          fiberboard, medium density fiberboard,
     Table 2 to Subpart DDDD—Operating                                                                              applicable.
                                                             laminated strand lumber, laminated
         Requirements                                        veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-dried                  (1) If the initial startup of your
     Table 3 to Subpart DDDD—Work Practice                   lumber, and glue-laminated beams.                      affected source is before the effective
         Requirements                                                                                               date of the subpart, then you must
                                                                (b) The PCWP manufacturing facility
     Table 4 to Subpart DDDD—Requirements for
         Performance Tests                                   is located at a major source of HAP                    comply with the compliance options,
     Table 5 to Subpart DDDD—Performance                     emissions. A major source of HAP                       operating requirements, and work
         Testing and Initial Compliance                      emissions is any stationary source or                  practice requirements for new and
         Demonstrations for the Compliance                   group of stationary sources within a                   reconstructed sources in this subpart no
         Options and Operating Requirements                  contiguous area and under common                       later than the effective date of the
     Table 6 to Subpart DDDD—Initial                         control that emits or has the potential to             subpart.
         Compliance Demonstrations for Work                  emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07
         Practice Requirements                                                                                         (2) If the initial startup of your
                                                             megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or
     Table 7 to Subpart DDDD—Continuous                                                                             affected source is after the effective date
         Compliance With the Compliance                      any combination of HAP at a rate of
                                                             22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per                  of the subpart, then you must comply
         Options and Operating Requirements                                                                         with the compliance options, operating
     Table 8 to Subpart DDDD—Continuous                      year.
         Compliance With the Work Practice                                                                          requirements, and work practice
                                                             § 63.2232 What parts of my plant does this             requirements for new and reconstructed
         Requirements
                                                             subpart cover?                                         sources in this subpart upon initial
     Table 9 to Subpart DDDD—Requirements for
         Reports                                                (a) This rule applies to each new,                  startup of your affected source.
     Table 10 to Subpart DDDD—Applicability of               reconstructed, or existing affected
                                                                                                                       (b) If you have an existing affected
         General Provisions to Subpart DDDD                  source at a PCWP manufacturing
                                                             facility.                                              source, you must comply with the
     Appendix                                                                                                       compliance options, operating
                                                                (b) The affected source is the
     Appendix A to Subpart DDDD—Alternative                  collection of dryers, blenders, formers,               requirements, and work practice
        Procedure to Determine Capture                                                                              requirements for existing sources no
                                                             presses, board coolers, and other
        Efficiency From A Hot Press Enclosure                                                                       later than the date 3 years after the
        in the Plywood and Composite Wood                    process units associated with the
        Products Industry Using Sulfur                       manufacturing of plywood and                           effective date of the subpart.
        Hexafluoride Tracer Gas                              composite wood products at a plant site.                  (c) If you have an area source that
                                                             The affected source includes, but is not               increases its emissions or its potential to
     What This Subpart Covers                                limited to, green end operations, drying               emit such that it becomes a major source
     § 63.2230   What is the purpose of this                 operations, blending and forming                       of HAP, you must be in compliance
     subpart?                                                operations, pressing and board cooling                 with this subpart by the date 3 years
       This subpart establishes national                     operations, and miscellaneous finishing                after the effective date of the subpart or
     compliance options, operating                           operations (such as sanding, sawing,                   upon initial startup of your affected
     requirements, and work practice                         patching, edge sealing, and other
                                                                                                                    source as a major source, whichever is
     requirements for hazardous air                          finishing operations not subject to other
                                                                                                                    later.
     pollutants (HAP) emitted from plywood                   NESHAP). The affected source also
                                                             includes onsite storage of raw materials                  (d) You must meet the notification
     and composite wood products
     manufacturing facilities. This subpart                  used in the manufacture of plywood                     requirements according to the schedule
     also establishes requirements to                        and/or composite wood products, such                   in § 63.2280 and according to 40 CFR
     demonstrate initial and continuous                      as resins; onsite wastewater treatment                 part 63, subpart A. Some of the
     compliance with the compliance                          operations specifically associated with                notifications must be submitted before
     options, operating requirements, and                    plywood and composite wood products                    you are required to comply with the
     work practice requirements.                             manufacturing; and miscellaneous                       compliance options, operating
                                                             coating operations (defined in                         requirements, and work practice
     § 63.2231   Does this subpart apply to me?              § 63.2292). The affected source includes               requirements in this subpart.
       This subpart applies to you if you                    lumber kilns at PCWP manufacturing
     meet the criteria in paragraphs (a) and                 facilities and at any other kind of
     (b) of this section.                                    facility.


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00037   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1312                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     Compliance Options, Operating                           and an add-on control system                            concentration-based compliance options
     Requirements, and Work Practice                         compliance option for another vent on                   for a control system outlet (presented as
     Requirements                                            the same veneer dryer. You must use                     option numbers 2, 4, and 6 in Table 1B
                                                             either the production-based compliance                  of this subpart), you must have a
     § 63.2240 What are the compliance options               option or an add-on control system                      capture device that either meets the EPA
     and operating requirements and how must
                                                             compliance option for the entire dryer.)                Method 204 criteria for a permanent
     I meet them?
                                                                (a) Production-based compliance                      total enclosure (PTE) or achieves a
        You must meet the compliance                         options. Meet the production-based total                capture efficiency of greater than or
     options and operating requirements                      HAP compliance options in Table 1A of                   equal to 95 percent.
     described in Tables 1A, 1B, and 2 of this               this subpart and the applicable                            (c) Emissions averaging compliance
     subpart and in paragraph (c) of this                    operating requirements in Table 2 of                    option (for existing sources only). Using
     section by using one or more of the                     this subpart. You may not use an add-                   the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1)
     compliance options listed in paragraphs                 on control system to meet the                           through (3) of this section, demonstrate
     (a), (b), and (c) of this section. The                  production-based compliance options.                    that emissions included in the
     process units subject to the compliance                    (b) Compliance options for add-on                    emissions average meet the compliance
     options are listed in Tables 1A and 1B                  control systems. Use an emissions                       options and operating requirements.
     (the same process units are listed in                   control system and demonstrate that the                 New sources may not use emissions
     both tables) and are defined in                         resulting emissions meet the                            averaging to comply with this subpart.
     § 63.2292. You need only to meet one of                 compliance options and operating                           (1) Calculation of required and actual
     the compliance options outlined in                      requirements in Tables 1B and 2 of this                 mass removal. Limit emissions of total
     paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section              subpart. If you own or operate a                        HAP, as defined in § 63.2292, to include
     for each process unit. You cannot use                   reconstituted wood product press at a                   acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde,
     multiple compliance options for a single                new or existing affected source or a                    methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde
     process unit. (For example, you cannot                  reconstituted wood product board                        from your affected source to the
     use a production-based compliance                       cooler at a new affected source, and you                standard specified by Equations 1, 2,
     option for one vent of a veneer dryer                   choose to comply with one of the                        and 3 of this section.


                                                                         n              
                                                           RMR = 0.90 ×  ∑ UCEPi × OH i                  (Eq. 1)
                                                                         i=1            


                                                                   n                     
                                                            AMR =  ∑ CD i × OCEPi × OH i                 (Eq. 2)
                                                                   i=1                   


                                                                         AMR ≥ RMR                        (Eq. 3)


     Where:                                                        expressed as a fraction, and not to               installation and process unit inclusion
                                                                   exceed 90 percent, unitless                       in the emissions average both pre-date
     RMR = required mass removal of total
                                                             OCEPi = mass of total HAP from a                        the effective date of the State, Tribal, or
         HAP from all process units
                                                                   process unit (i) that generates                   Federal rule.
         generating debits (i.e., all process
         units that are subject to the                             credits, pounds per hour                             (iv) You must use actual
         compliance options in Tables 1A                     0.90 = required control system                          measurements of total HAP emissions
         and 1B of this subpart and that are                       efficiency of 90 percent multiplied,              from process units to calculate your
         either uncontrolled or under-                             unitless                                          required mass removal (RMR) and
         controlled), pounds per semiannual                     (2) Requirements for debits and                      actual mass removal (AMR). The total
         period                                              credits. You must calculate debits and                  HAP measurements must be obtained
                                                             credits as specified in paragraphs                      according to § 63.2262(b) through (d),
     AMR = actual mass removal of total                                                                              (g), and (h), using the methods specified
         HAP from all process units                          (c)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section.
                                                                (i) You must limit process units in the              in Table 4 of this subpart.
         generating credits (i.e., all process
                                                             emissions average to those process units                   (v) Your initial demonstration that the
         units that are controlled as part of
                                                             located at the existing affected source,                credit-generating process units will be
         the Emissions Averaging Plan),
                                                             as defined in § 63.2292.                                capable of generating enough credits to
         pounds per semiannual period
                                                                (ii) You cannot use nonoperating                     offset the debits from the debit-
     UCEPi = mass of total HAP from an                                                                               generating process units must be made
                                                             process units to generate emissions
         uncontrolled or under-controlled                                                                            under representative operating
                                                             averaging credits. You cannot use
         process unit (i) that generates                                                                             conditions. After the compliance date,
                                                             process units that are shutdown to
         debits, pounds per hour                                                                                     you must use actual operating data for
                                                             generate emissions averaging debits or
     OHi = number of hours a process unit                    credits.                                                all debit and credit calculations.
         (i) is operated during the                             (iii) You may not include in your                       (vi) Do not include emissions from the
         semiannual period, hours per 6                      emissions average process units                         following time periods in your
         month period                                        controlled to comply with a State,                      emissions averaging calculations:
     CDi = control system efficiency for the                 Tribal, or Federal rule other than this                    (A) Emissions during periods of
                                                                                                                                                                   EP09JA03.016</MATH>




         emission point (i) for total HAP,                   subpart, except when the control system                 startup, shutdown, and malfunction as


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00038   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                             1313

     described in the startup, shutdown, and                 your control device maintenance                          (d) The compliance options and
     malfunction plan.                                       schedule for that period. To the extent                operating requirements do not apply
       (B) Emissions during periods of                       practical, startup and shutdown of                     during times when control device
     monitoring malfunctions, associated                     emission control systems must be                       maintenance covered under your
     repairs, and required quality assurance                 scheduled during times when process                    approved routine control device
     or control activities or during periods of              equipment is also shutdown for routine                 maintenance exemption is performed.
     control device maintenance covered in                   maintenance.                                           You must minimize emissions to the
     your routine control device                               (f) If you use a catalytic oxidizer, you             greatest extent possible during these
     maintenance exemption. No credits may                   must maintain and operate the catalyst                 routine control device maintenance
     be assigned to credit-generating process                according to the manufacturer’s                        periods.
     units, and maximum debits must be                       specifications.                                          (e) You must, at the beginning of each
     assigned to debit-generating process                                                                           semiannual compliance period, record
     units during these periods.                             § 63.2251 What are the requirements for
                                                             the routine control device maintenance                 your control device maintenance
       (3) Operating requirements. You must                                                                         schedule for that period. To the extent
     meet the operating requirements in                      exemption?
                                                                                                                    practical, startup and shutdown of
     Table 2 of this subpart for each process                   (a) You may request a routine control
                                                                                                                    emission control systems must be
     unit or control device used in                          device maintenance exemption from the
                                                                                                                    scheduled during times when process
     calculation of emissions averaging                      Administrator. Your request must justify
                                                                                                                    equipment is also shutdown.
     credits.                                                the need for the routine maintenance on
                                                             the control device and the time required               Initial Compliance Requirements
     § 63.2241 What are the work practice                    to accomplish the maintenance
     requirements and how must I meet them?                                                                         § 63.2260 How do I demonstrate initial
                                                             activities, describe the maintenance
       (a) You must meet each work practice                                                                         compliance with the compliance options,
                                                             activities and the frequency of the                    operating requirements, and work practice
     requirement in Table 3 of this subpart                  maintenance activities, explain why the                requirements?
     that applies to you.                                    maintenance cannot be accomplished
       (b) As provided in § 63.6(g), we, the                 during process shutdowns, describe                       (a) To demonstrate initial compliance
     EPA, may choose to grant you                            how you plan to minimize emissions to                  with the compliance options and
     permission to use an alternative to the                 the greatest extent possible during the                operating requirements, you must
     work practice requirements in this                      maintenance, and provide any other                     conduct performance tests and establish
     section.                                                documentation required by the                          each site-specific operating requirement
     General Compliance Requirements                         Administrator.                                         in Table 2 of this subpart according to
                                                                (b) The routine control device                      the requirements in § 63.2262 and Table
     § 63.2250 What are the requirements for                 maintenance exemption must not                         4 of this subpart. Combustion units with
     periods of startup, shutdown, and                                                                              heat input capacity of greater than or
                                                             exceed the percentages of process unit
     malfunction?                                                                                                   equal to 44 megawatts that accept
                                                             operating uptime in paragraphs (b)(1)
       (a) You must be in compliance with                    and (2) of this section.                               process exhausts into the flame zone are
     the compliance options, operating                                                                              exempt from the initial performance
                                                                (1) If the control device is used to
     requirements, and the work practice                                                                            testing and operating requirements for
                                                             control a green rotary dryer, tube dryer,
     requirements in this subpart at all times,                                                                     thermal oxidizers.
                                                             strand dryer, or pressurized refiner, then
     except during periods of startup,                                                                                (b) You must demonstrate initial
                                                             the routine control device maintenance
     shutdown, and malfunction; prior to                                                                            compliance with each compliance
                                                             exemption must not exceed 3 percent of
     initial startup; and during the routine                                                                        option, operating requirement, and work
                                                             annual operating uptime for each
     control device maintenance exemption                                                                           practice requirement that applies to you
                                                             process unit controlled.
     specified in § 63.2251.                                                                                        according to Tables 5 and 6 of this
       (b) You must always operate and                          (2) If the control device is used to
                                                             control a softwood veneer dryer,                       subpart and according to §§ 63.2260
     maintain your affected source, including                                                                       through 63.2268 of this subpart.
     air pollution control and monitoring                    reconstituted wood product press,
     equipment, according to the provisions                  reconstituted wood product board                         (c) You must submit the Notification
     in § 63.6(e)(1)(i).                                     cooler, hardboard oven, press predryer,                of Compliance Status containing the
       (c) You must develop and implement                    or fiberboard mat dryer, then the routine              results of the initial compliance
     a written startup, shutdown, and                        control device maintenance exemption                   demonstration according to the
     malfunction plan (SSMP) according to                    must not exceed 0.5 percent of annual                  requirements in § 63.2280(d).
     the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3).                         operating uptime for each process unit
                                                             controlled.                                            § 63.2261 By what date must I conduct
       (d) The compliance options, operating                                                                        performance tests or other initial
     requirements, and work practice                            (3) If the control device is used to                compliance demonstrations?
     requirements do not apply during times                  control a combination of equipment
     when the process unit(s) subject to the                 listed in both paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)                  (a) You must conduct performance
     compliance options, operating                           of this section, such as a tube dryer and              tests upon initial startup or no later than
     requirements, and work practice                         a reconstituted wood product press,                    180 calendar days after the compliance
     requirements are not operating, or                      then the routine control device                        date that is specified for your source in
     during scheduled startup and shutdown                   maintenance exemption must not                         § 63.2233 and according to § 63.7(a)(2),
     periods, and during malfunctions. These                 exceed 3 percent of annual operating                   whichever is later.
     startup and shutdown periods must not                   uptime for each process unit controlled.                  (b) You must conduct initial
     exceed the minimum amount of time                          (c) The request for the routine control             compliance demonstrations that do not
     necessary for these events, and during                  device maintenance exemption, if                       require performance tests upon initial
     these events, you must minimize                         approved by the Administrator, must be                 startup or no later than 30 calendar days
     emissions to the greatest extent possible.              incorporated by reference in and                       after the compliance date that is
       (e) You must, at the beginning of each                attached to the affected source’s title V              specified for your source in § 63.2233,
     semiannual compliance period, record                    permit.                                                whichever is later.


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00039   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1314                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     § 63.2262 How do I conduct performance                     (h) Calculation of percent reduction                CE = capture efficiency, percent
     tests and establish operating                           across a control system. When                              (determined for reconstituted wood
     requirements?                                           determining the control system                             product presses and board coolers
        (a) You must conduct each                            efficiency for any control system                          as required in Table 4 of this
     performance test according to the                       included in your emissions averaging                       subpart)?≤
     requirements in § 63.7(e)(1), the                       plan (not to exceed 90 percent) and                      (j) Thickness basis conversion. Use
     requirements in paragraphs (b) through                  when complying with any of the                         Equation 3 of this section to convert
     (o) of this section, and according to the               compliance options based on percent                    from one thickness basis to another:
     methods specified in Table 4 of this                    reduction across a control system in
     subpart.                                                Table 1B of this subpart, as part of the                                       A
        (b) Periods when performance tests                   performance test, you must calculate the                       MSFB = MSFA ×         ( Eq. 3)
     must be conducted.                                      percent reduction using Equation 1 of                                          B
        (1) You must not conduct                             this section:                                          Where:
     performance tests during periods of                                                                            MSFA = thousand square feet on an A-
     startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as                                 ER in − ER out                                inch basis
                                                             PR = CE ×                    (100)          ( Eq. 1)   MSFB = thousand square feet on a B-
     specified in § 63.7(e)(1).                                                ER in
        (2) You must test under representative                                                                           inch basis
     operating conditions as defined in                      Where:                                                 A = old thickness you are converting
     § 63.2292. You must describe                            PR = percent reduction, percent                             from, inches
     representative operating conditions in                  CE = capture efficiency, percent                       B = new thickness you are converting to,
     your performance test report for the                         (determined for reconstituted wood                     inches
     process and control systems and explain                      product presses and board coolers                    (k) Establishing thermal oxidizer
     why they are representative.                                 as required in Table 4 of this                    operating requirements. If you operate a
        (c) Number of test runs. You must                         subpart)                                          thermal oxidizer, you must establish
     conduct three separate test runs for each               ERin = emission rate of total HAP                      your thermal oxidizer operating
     performance test required in this                            (calculated as the sum of the                     parameters according to paragraphs
     section, as specified in § 63.7(e)(3). Each                  emission rates of acetaldehyde,                   (k)(1) through (4) of this section.
     test run must last at least 1 hour except                    acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol,                    (1) During the initial performance test,
     for: testing of a temporary total                            phenol, and propionaldehyde),                     you must continuously monitor the
     enclosure (TTE) conducted using                              THC, formaldehyde, or methanol in                 firebox temperature during each of the
     Methods 204A through 204F which                              the inlet vent stream of the control              required 1-hour test runs. The minimum
     require three separate test runs of at                       device, pounds per hour                           firebox temperature must then be
     least 3 hours each; and testing of an                   ERout = emission rate of total HAP                     established as the average of the three
     enclosure conducted using the                                (calculated as the sum of the                     minimum 15-minute firebox
     alternative tracer gas method in                             emission rates of acetaldehyde,                   temperatures monitored during the
     appendix A to this subpart which                             acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol,                 three test runs. Multiple 3-run
     requires a minimum of three separate                         phenol, and propionaldehyde),                     performance tests may be conducted to
     runs of at least 20 minutes each.                            THC, formaldehyde, or methanol in                 establish a range of parameter values
        (d) Location of sampling sites.                           the outlet vent stream of the control             under different operating conditions.
     Sampling sites must be located at the                        device, pounds per hour                              (2) If you choose to monitor inlet
     inlet (if emission reduction testing or                   (i) Calculation of mass per unit                     static pressure during the initial
     documentation of inlet methanol or                      production. To comply with any of the                  performance test, you must
     formaldehyde concentration is required)                 production-based compliance options in                 continuously monitor the static pressure
     and outlet of the control device and                    Table 1A of this subpart, you must                     at the inlet of the thermal oxidizer
     prior to any releases to the atmosphere.                calculate your mass per unit production                during each of the required 1-hour test
        (e) Collection of monitoring data. You               emissions for each test run using                      runs. The static pressure operating range
     must collect operating parameter                        Equation 2 of this section:                            must then be established as the
     monitoring system or continuous                                                                                maximum and minimum of the 15-
     emissions monitoring system (CEMS)                                        ER HAP                               minute static pressures monitored
     data at least every 15 minutes during the                         MP =                   ( Eq. 2)              during the entire 3-hour test. Multiple 3-
     entire initial performance test and
                                                                               P × CE
                                                                                                                    run performance tests may be conducted
     determine the parameter or                              Where:                                                 to establish a range of parameter values
     concentration value for the operating                   MP = mass per unit production, pounds                  under different operating conditions.
     requirement during the performance test                     per oven dried ton OR pounds per                      (3) If you choose to monitor stack gas
     using the methods specified in                              thousand square feet on a specified                flow during the initial performance test,
     paragraphs (k) through (o) of this                          thickness basis (see paragraph (j) of              you must continuously monitor the gas
     section.                                                    this section if you need to convert                flow rate at the thermal oxidizer stack
        (f) Collection of production data. To                    from one thickness basis to another)               during each of the required 1-hour test
                                                                                                                                                                  EP09JA03.010</MATH>




     comply with any of the production-                      ERHAP = emission rate of total HAP                     runs. The maximum flow rate must then
     based compliance options, you must                          (calculated as the sum of the                      be established as the average of the three
     measure and record the process unit                         emission rates of acetaldehyde,                    maximum 15-minute flow rates
     throughput during each test.                                acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol,                  monitored during the three test runs.
        (g) Nondetect data. When determining                     phenol, and propionaldehyde) in                    Multiple 3-run performance tests may
                                                                                                                                                                  EP09JA03.009</MATH>




     total HAP, formaldehyde, methanol, or                       the stack, pounds per hour                         be conducted to establish a range of
     THC emission rates, all nondetect data,                 P = process unit production rate                       parameter values under different
     as defined in § 63.2292, must be treated                    (throughput), oven dried tons per                  operating conditions.
     as one-half of the method detection                         hour OR thousand square feet per                      (4) You may establish a different
                                                                                                                                                                  EP09JA03.008</MATH>




     limit.                                                      hour on a specified thickness basis                minimum firebox temperature, static


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00040   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                             1315

     pressure operating range, or maximum                    parameter values under different                       operating temperature (whichever
     stack gas flow rate for your thermal                    operating conditions.                                  applies, as specified for different
     oxidizer by submitting the notification                    (4) You may establish a different                   process units in Table 2 of this subpart)
     specified in § 63.2280(g) and conducting                minimum upstream temperature, static                   during each of the required 1-hour test
     a repeat performance test as specified in               pressure operating range, or maximum                   runs. The maximum inlet temperature
     paragraphs (k)(1) and (3) of this section               stack gas flow rate for your catalytic                 or maximum operating temperature
     that demonstrates compliance with the                   oxidizer by submitting the notification                must then be established as the average
     compliance options in Table 1B of this                  specified in § 63.2280(g) and conducting               of the three maximum 15-minute
     subpart.                                                a repeat performance test as specified in              temperatures monitored during the
        (5) If your thermal oxidizer is a                    paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this                  three test runs. Multiple 3-run
     combustion unit with a heat input                       section that demonstrates compliance                   performance tests may be conducted to
     capacity greater than or equal to 44                    with the compliance options in Table                   establish a range of parameter values
     megawatts, then you are exempt from                     1B of this subpart.                                    under different operating conditions.
     the initial performance testing and                        (m) Establishing biofilter operating                   (2) You may establish a different
     monitoring requirements specified in                    requirements. If you operate a biofilter,              maximum temperature for your process
     paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of this                   you must establish your average biofilter              unit by submitting the notification
     section. To demonstrate initial                         operating requirements according to                    specified in § 63.2280(g) and conducting
     compliance, you must submit                             paragraphs (m)(1) through (3) of this                  a repeat performance test as specified in
     documentation with your Notification of                 section.                                               paragraph (n)(1) of this section that
     Compliance Status showing that your                        (1) During the initial performance test,            demonstrates compliance with the
     combustion unit has a heat input                        you must monitor the temperature of the                compliance options in Table 1A of this
     capacity of greater than or equal to 44                 air stream entering the biofilter, pH of               subpart.
     megawatts and that process exhausts                     the biofilter effluent, and pressure drop                 (o) Establishing operating
     controlled by the combustion unit enter                 across the biofilter bed. You must                     requirements using total hydrocarbon
     into the flame zone.                                    specify appropriate monitoring                         (THC) CEMS. If you choose to meet the
        (l) Establishing catalytic oxidizer                  methods, monitoring frequencies, and                   operating requirements by monitoring
     operating requirements. If you operate a                averaging times for the parameters. You                THC concentration instead of
     catalytic oxidizer, you must establish                  also must specify appropriate minimum                  monitoring control device or process
     your catalytic oxidizer operating                       limits, maximum limits, or operating                   operating parameters, you must
     parameters according to paragraphs                      ranges for the parameters you will                     establish your THC concentration
     (l)(1) through (4) of this section.                     monitor. You may base operating ranges                 operating requirement according to
        (1) During the initial performance test,             on values recorded during previous                     paragraphs (o)(1) through (2) of this
     you must continuously monitor the                       performance tests provided that the data               section.
     temperature upstream of the catalyst                    used to establish the operating ranges                    (1) During the initial performance test,
     bed during the required 1-hour test                     have been obtained using the test                      you must continuously monitor THC
     runs. The minimum upstream                              methods required in this subpart. If you               concentration using your CEMS during
     temperature must then be established as                 use data from previous performance                     each of the required 1-hour test runs.
     the average of the three minimum 15-                    tests, you must certify that the biofilter             The maximum THC concentration must
     minute temperatures upstream of the                     and associated process unit(s) have not                then be established as the average of the
     catalyst bed monitored during the three                 been modified subsequent to the date                   three maximum 15-minute THC
     test runs. Multiple 3-run performance                   the historical data were collected.                    concentrations monitored during the
     tests may be conducted to establish a                      (2) If historical operating records are             three test runs. Multiple 3-run
     range of parameter values under                         not readily available (as would be the                 performance tests may be conducted to
     different operating conditions.                         case for a new biofilter installation), you            establish a range of THC concentration
        (2) If you choose to monitor inlet                   will be allowed up to 180 days                         values under different operating
     static pressure during the initial                      following the compliance date to gather                conditions.
     performance test, you must                              data and complete the requirements in                     (2) You may establish a different
     continuously monitor the static pressure                paragraph (m)(1) of this section.                      maximum THC concentration by
     at the inlet of the catalytic oxidizer                     (3) You may establish different                     submitting the notification specified in
     during each of the required 1-hour test                 operating ranges for your biofilter                    § 63.2280(g) and conducting a repeat
     runs. The static pressure operating range               operating parameters by submitting the                 performance test as specified in
     must then be established as the                         notification specified in § 63.2280(g)                 paragraph (o)(1) of this section that
     maximum and minimum of the 15-                          and conducting a repeat performance                    demonstrates compliance with the
     minute static pressures monitored                       test as specified in paragraph (m)(1) of               compliance options in Tables 1A and 1B
     during the entire 3-hour test. Multiple 3-              this section that demonstrates                         of this subpart.
     run performance tests may be conducted                  compliance with the compliance
     to establish a range of parameter values                options in Table 1B of this subpart.                   § 63.2263 Initial compliance demonstration
     under different operating conditions.                      (n) Establishing uncontrolled process               for a dry rotary dryer.
        (3) If you choose to monitor stack gas               unit operating requirements. If you                      If you operate a dry rotary dryer, you
     flow during the initial performance test,               operate a process unit that meets a                    must demonstrate that your dryer
     you must continuously monitor the gas                   compliance option in Table 1A of this                  processes furnish with an inlet moisture
     flow rate at the catalytic oxidizer stack               subpart without the use of a control                   content of less than or equal to 30
     during each of the required 1-hour test                 device, you must establish your process                percent (by weight, dry basis) and
     runs. The maximum flow rate must then                   unit operating parameters according to                 operates with a dryer inlet temperature
     be established as the average of the three              paragraphs (n)(1) through (2) of this                  of less than or equal to 600 °F. You must
     maximum 15-minute flow rates                            section.                                               designate and clearly identify each dry
     monitored during the three test runs.                      (1) During the initial performance test,            rotary dryer. You must record the inlet
     Multiple 3-run performance tests may                    you must continuously monitor the                      furnish moisture content (dry basis) and
     be conducted to establish a range of                    process unit inlet temperature or                      inlet dryer


VerDate Dec<13>2002   17:25 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00041   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1316                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     operating temperature according to                       review and approval for minimizing                        (3) Except as provided in paragraph
     § 63.2268(a), (b), and (f) for a minimum                 fugitive emissions from the veneer dryer               (a)(4) of this section, determine the 3-
     of 30 calendar days. You must submit                     heated zones, and you must submit the                  hour block average of all recorded
     the highest recorded 24-hour average                     plan with your Notification of                         readings, calculated after every 3 hours
     inlet furnish moisture content and the                   Compliance Status.                                     of operation as the average of the
     highest recorded 24-hour average dryer                                                                          previous 3 operating hours (not
     inlet temperature with your Notification                 § 63.2266 Initial compliance demonstration             including startup, shutdown, and
                                                              for a veneer redryer.
     of Compliance Status. In addition,                                                                              malfunction or periods of control device
     submit with the Notification of                            If you operate a veneer redryer, you                 maintenance covered by any approved
     Compliance Status a signed statement                     must record the inlet moisture content                 routine control device maintenance
     by a responsible official that certifies                 of the veneer processed in the redryer                 exemption).
     with truth, accuracy, and completeness                   according to § 63.2268(a) and (f) for a                   (4) For dry rotary dryer and veneer
     that the dry rotary dryer will dry furnish               minimum of 30 calendar days. You                       redryer wood moisture monitoring and
     with a maximum inlet moisture content                    must designate and clearly identify each               for dry rotary dryer temperature
     less than or equal to 30 percent (by                     veneer redryer. You must submit the                    monitoring, determine the 24-hour
     weight, dry basis) and will operate with                 highest recorded 24-hour average inlet                 block average of all recorded readings,
     a maximum inlet temperature of less                      veneer moisture content with your                      calculated after every 24 hours of
     than or equal to 600°F in the future.                    Notification of Compliance Status to                   operation as the average of the previous
                                                              show that your veneer redryer processes                24 operating hours (not including
     § 63.2264 Initial compliance demonstration               veneer with an inlet moisture content of               startup, shutdown, and malfunction). To
     for a hardwood veneer dryer.                             less than or equal to 25 percent (by                   calculate the average wood moisture or
       If you operate a hardwood veneer                       weight, dry basis). In addition, submit                temperature for each 24-hour averaging
     dryer, you must record the annual                        with the Notification of Compliance                    period, you must have at least 75
     volume percentage of softwood veneer                     Status a signed statement by a                         percent of the hourly averages for that
     species processed in the dryer as                        responsible official that certifies with               period using only hourly average values
     follows:                                                 truth, accuracy, and completeness that                 that are based on valid data (i.e., not
       (a) Use Equation 1 of this section to                  the veneer redryer will dry veneer with                from periods when the monitor is out of
     calculate the annual volume percentage                   a moisture content less than 25 percent                control).
     of softwood species dried:                               (by weight, dry basis) in the future.                     (5) Record the results of each
                                                              § 63.2267 Initial compliance demonstration             inspection, calibration, and validation
                      SW
            SW% =        (100)             ( Eq. 1)           for a reconstituted wood product press or              check.
                       T                                      board cooler.                                             (b) Temperature monitoring. For each
     Where:                                                      If you operate a reconstituted wood                 temperature monitoring device, you
     SW% = annual volume percent softwood                     product press at a new or existing                     must meet the requirements in
          species dried                                       affected source or a reconstituted wood                paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) through (6) of
     SW = softwood veneer dried during the                    product board cooler at a new affected                 this section.
          previous 12 months, thousand                        source, then you must verify the capture                  (1) Locate the temperature sensor in a
          square feet (3⁄8-inch basis)                        efficiency of the capture device for the               position that provides a representative
     T = total softwood and hardwood veneer                   press or board cooler using Methods 204                temperature.
          dried duringthe previous 12                         and 204A through 204F of 40 CFR part                      (2) Use a temperature sensor with a
          months, thousand square feet (3⁄8-                  51, appendix M (as appropriate) or                     minimum tolerance of 4 °F or 0.75
          inch basis)                                         using the alternative tracer gas method                percent of the temperature value,
       (b) You must designate and clearly                     contained in appendix A to this subpart.               whichever is larger.
     identify each hardwood veneer dryer.                     You must submit the results of the                        (3) If a chart recorder is used, it must
     Submit with the Notification of                          capture efficiency verification with your              have a sensitivity in the minor division
     Compliance Status the annual volume                      Notification of Compliance Status.                     of at least 20 °F.
     percentage of softwood species dried in                                                                            (4) Perform an electronic calibration
                                                              § 63.2268 What are my monitoring                       at least semiannually according to the
     the dryer based on your dryer                            installation, operation, and maintenance
     production for the 12 months prior to                                                                           procedures in the manufacturer’s
                                                              requirements?                                          owners manual. Following the
     the compliance date specified for your
     source in § 63.2233. If you did not dry                     (a) General continuous parameter                    electronic calibration, you must conduct
     any softwood species in the dryer                        monitoring requirements. You must                      a temperature sensor validation check in
     during the 12 months prior to the                        install, operate, and maintain each                    which a second or redundant
     compliance date, then you need only to                   continuous parameter monitoring                        temperature sensor placed nearby the
     submit a statement indicating that no                    system (CPMS) according to paragraphs                  process temperature sensor must yield a
     softwood species were dried. In                          (a)(1) through (5) of this section.                    reading within 30 °F of the process
     addition, submit with the Notification of                   (1) The CPMS must complete a                        temperature sensor’s reading.
     Compliance Status a signed statement                     minimum of one cycle of operation for                     (5) Conduct calibration and validation
     by a responsible official that certifies                 each successive 15-minute period. To                   checks any time the sensor exceeds the
     with truth, accuracy, and completeness                   calculate a valid hourly value, you must               manufacturer’s specified maximum
     that the veneer dryer will be used to                    have at least three equally spaced data                operating temperature range or install a
     process less than 30 volume percent                      values for that hour from a CPMS that                  new temperature sensor.
     softwood species in the future.                          is not out of control.                                    (6) At least quarterly, inspect all
                                                                 (2) At all times, you must maintain                 components for integrity and all
     § 63.2265 Initial compliance demonstration               the monitoring equipment including,                    electrical connections for continuity,
     for a softwood veneer dryer.                             but not limited to, maintaining                        oxidation, and galvanic corrosion.
       If you operate a softwood veneer                       necessary parts for routine repairs of the                (c) Pressure monitoring. For each
                                                                                                                                                                   EP09JA03.011</MATH>




     dryer, you must develop a plan for                       monitoring equipment.                                  pressure measurement device, you must


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003    Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00042   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                            1317

     meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)                   (1) Use a moisture monitor with a                      (4) The CEMS data must be reduced
     and (c)(1) through (7) of this section.                 minimum accuracy of 1 percent                          as specified in § 63.8(g)(2) and
        (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or              moisture or better. Alternatively, you                 paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
     as close to a position that provides a                  may use a moisture monitor with a
                                                                                                                    Continuous Compliance Requirements
     representative measurement of the                       minimum accuracy of 5 percent
     pressure.                                               moisture or better for dry rotary dryers               § 63.2270 How do I monitor and collect
        (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating                  used to dry furnish with less than 25                  data to demonstrate continuous
     pressure, vibration, and internal and                   percent moisture or for veneer redryers                compliance?
     external corrosion.                                     used to redry veneer with less than 20                    (a) You must monitor and collect data
        (3) Use a gauge with a minimum                       percent moisture.                                      according to this section.
     tolerance of 0.5 inches of water column                   (2) Locate the moisture meter in a                      (b) Except for, as appropriate, monitor
     or a transducer with a minimum                          position that provides a representative                malfunctions, associated repairs, and
     tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure                  measure of furnish or veneer moisture.                 required quality assurance or control
     range.                                                    (3) Check the moisture meter’s                       activities (including, as applicable,
        (4) Check pressure tap daily to ensure               calibration by manually determining the                calibration checks and required zero
     it is not plugged.                                      moisture content of samples of furnish                 and span adjustments), you must
        (5) Using a manometer, check gauge                   or veneer at least once each day of                    conduct all monitoring in continuous
     calibration quarterly and transducer                    process operation as follows:                          operation at all times that the process
     calibration monthly.                                      (i) Collect a sample of furnish or                   unit is operating. For purposes of
        (6) Conduct calibration checks any                   veneer just as it passes by the meter.                 calculating data averages, you must not
     time the sensor exceeds the                               (ii) Record the moisture meter reading               use data recorded during monitoring
     manufacturer’s specified maximum                        for the sample of furnish or veneer                    malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-
     operating pressure range or install a new               collected.                                             control periods, or required quality
     pressure sensor.                                          (iii) Determine the moisture content of              assurance or control activities. You
        (7) At least quarterly, inspect all                  the furnish or veneer sample by first                  must use all the data collected during
     components for integrity, all electrical                weighing the wet sample and                            all other periods in assessing
     connections for continuity, and all                     thoroughly drying the sample until it                  compliance. A monitoring malfunction
     mechanical connections for leakage.                     reaches a constant weight in a bench-                  is any sudden, infrequent, not
        (d) pH monitoring. For each pH                       scale dryer. Use Equation 1 of this                    reasonably preventable failure of the
     measurement device, you must meet the                   section to calculate the furnish or                    monitoring to provide valid data.
     requirements in paragraphs (a) and                      veneer moisture weight percent on a dry                Monitoring failures that are caused in
     (d)(1) through (4) of this section.                     basis:                                                 part by poor maintenance or careless
        (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position                                                                      operation are not malfunctions. Any
     that provides a representative                                       Wwet − Wdry
     measurement of pH.                                            MC =                   (100)       ( Eq. 1)      period for which the monitoring system
                                                                               Wdry                                 is out-of-control and data are not
        (2) Ensure the sample is properly                                                                           available for required calculations
     mixed and representative of the fluid to                Where:
                                                                                                                    constitutes a deviation from the
     be measured.                                            MC = moisture content of wood material                 monitoring requirements.
        (3) Check the pH meter’s calibration                      (weight percent, dry basis)                          (c) You may not use data recorded
     on at least two points every 8 hours of                 Wwet = original weight of the wood,                    during monitoring malfunctions,
     process operation.                                           pounds                                            associated repairs, and required quality
        (4) At least quarterly, inspect all                  Wdry = weight of the dried wood,
                                                                                                                    assurance or control activities or data
     components for integrity and all                             pounds
                                                                                                                    recorded during periods of control
     electrical connections for continuity.                    (4) At least quarterly, inspect all                  device downtime covered in any
        (e) Flow monitoring. For each flow                   components of the moisture meter for                   approved routine control device
     measurement device, you must meet the                   integrity and all electrical connections               maintenance exemption in data averages
     requirements in paragraphs (a) and                      for continuity.                                        and calculations used to report emission
     (e)(1) through (5) of this section.                       (g) Continuous emission monitoring                   or operating levels, nor may such data
        (1) Locate the flow sensor and other                 system(s). Each CEMS must be installed,                be used in fulfilling a minimum data
     necessary equipment such as                             operated, and maintained according to                  availability requirement, if applicable.
     straightening vanes in a position that                  paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this                  You must use all the data collected
     provides a representative flow.                         section.                                               during all other periods in assessing the
        (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum                   (1) Each CEMS for monitoring THC
                                                                                                                    operation of the control system.
     tolerance of 2 percent of the flow rate.                concentration must be installed,
        (3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal                 operated, and maintained according to                  § 63.2271 How do I demonstrate
     velocity distributions due to upstream                  Performance Specification 8 of 40 CFR                  continuous compliance with the compliance
     and downstream disturbances.                            part 60, appendix B. You must also                     options, operating requirements, and work
        (4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration                comply with Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part                 practice requirements?
     check at least semiannually.                            60, appendix F.                                          (a) You must demonstrate continuous
        (5) At least quarterly, inspect all                    (2) You must conduct a performance                   compliance with the compliance
     components for integrity, all electrical                evaluation of each CEMS according to                   options, operating requirements, and
     connections for continuity, and all                     the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and                    work practice requirements in
     mechanical connections for leakage.                     according to Performance Specification                 §§ 63.2240 and 63.2241 that apply to
        (f) Wood moisture monitoring. For                    8 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.                       you according to the methods specified
     each furnish or veneer moisture meter,                    (3) As specified in § 63.8(c)(4)(ii),                in Tables 7 and 8 of this subpart.
     you must meet the requirements in                       each CEMS must complete a minimum                        (b) You must report each instance in
     paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (4) and (5) and                 of one cycle of operation (sampling,                   which you did not meet each
     paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this                   analyzing, and data recording) for each                compliance option, operating
                                                                                                                                                                 EP09JA03.012</MATH>




     section.                                                successive 15-minute period.                           requirement, and work practice


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00043   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1318                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     requirement in Tables 7 and 8 of this                   performance test, you must submit the                    (1) You modify or replace the control
     subpart that applies to you. This                       Notification of Compliance Status before               system for any process unit subject to
     includes periods of startup, shutdown,                  the close of business on the 30th                      the compliance options and operating
     or malfunction and periods of control                   calendar day following the completion                  requirements in this subpart.
     device maintenance specified in                         of the initial compliance demonstration.                 (2) You shutdown any process unit
     paragraphs (b)(1) and (3) of this section.                 (2) For each initial compliance                     included in your Emissions Averaging
     These instances are deviations from the                 demonstration required in Tables 5 and                 Plan.
     compliance options, operating                           6 of this subpart that includes a                        (3) You change a continuous
     requirements, and work practice                         performance test conducted according                   monitoring parameter or the value or
     requirements in this subpart. These                     to the requirements in Table 4 of this                 range of values of a continuous
     deviations must be reported according                   subpart, you must submit the                           monitoring parameter for any process
     to the requirements in § 63.2281.                       Notification of Compliance Status,                     unit or control device.
       (1) During periods of startup,                        including the performance test results,
                                                                                                                    § 63.2281   What reports must I submit and
     shutdown, or malfunction, you must                      before the close of business on the 60th               when?
     operate in accordance with the SSMP.                    calendar day following the completion
       (2) Consistent with § 63.6(e) and                                                                               (a) You must submit each report in
                                                             of the performance test according to
     63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during                                                                       Table 9 of this subpart that applies to
                                                             § 63.10(d)(2).
     a period of startup, shutdown, or                                                                              you.
                                                                (e) If you request a routine control
                                                                                                                       (b) Unless the Administrator has
     malfunction are not violations if you                   device maintenance exemption
                                                                                                                    approved a different schedule for
     demonstrate to the Administrator’s                      according to § 63.2251, you must submit
                                                                                                                    submission of reports under § 63.10(a),
     satisfaction that you were operating in                 your request for the exemption no later
                                                                                                                    you must submit each report by the date
     accordance with the SSMP. The                           than 30 days before the compliance
                                                                                                                    in Table 9 of this subpart and as
     Administrator will determine whether                    date.
                                                                                                                    specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
     deviations that occur during a period of                   (f) If you use the emissions averaging              (5) of this section.
     startup, shutdown, or malfunction are                   compliance option in § 63.2240(c), you                    (1) The first compliance report must
     violations, according to the provisions                 must submit an Emissions Averaging                     cover the period beginning on the
     in § 63.6(e).                                           Plan to the Administrator for approval                 compliance date that is specified for
       (3) Deviations that occur during                      no later than 1 year before the                        your affected source in § 63.2233 ending
     periods of control device maintenance                   compliance date or no later than 1 year                on June 30 or December 31, and lasting
     covered by any approved routine                         before the date you would begin using                  at least 6 months, but less than 12
     control device maintenance exemption                    an emissions average, whichever is                     months. For example, if your
     are not violations if you demonstrate to                later. The Emissions Averaging Plan                    compliance date is March 1, then the
     the Administrator’s satisfaction that you               must include the information in                        first semiannual reporting period would
     were operating in accordance with the                   paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this                  begin on March 1 and end on December
     approved routine control device                         section.                                               31.
     maintenance exemption.                                     (1) Identification of all the process                  (2) The first compliance report must
     Notifications, Reports, and Records                     units to be included in the emissions                  be postmarked or delivered no later than
                                                             average indicating which process units                 July 31 or January 31 for compliance
     § 63.2280 What notifications must I submit              will be used to generate credits, and                  periods ending on June 30 and
     and when?                                               which process units that are subject to                December 31, respectively.
        (a) You must submit all of the                       compliance options in Tables 1A and 1B                    (3) Each subsequent compliance
     notifications in §§ 63.7(b) and (c),                    of this subpart will be uncontrolled or                report must cover the semiannual
     63.8(e), (f)(4) and (f)(6), 63.9(b) through             under-controlled (used to generate                     reporting period from January 1 through
     (e), and (g) and (h) by the dates                       debits).                                               June 30 or the semiannual reporting
     specified.                                                 (2) Description of the control system               period from July 1 through December
        (b) You must submit an Initial                       used to generate emission credits for                  31.
     Notification no later than 120 calendar                 each process unit used to generate                        (4) Each subsequent compliance
     days after the effective date of the                    credits.                                               report must be postmarked or delivered
     subpart or after initial startup,                          (3) Determination of the total HAP                  no later than July 31 or January 31 for
     whichever is later, as specified in                     control efficiency for the control system              the semiannual reporting period ending
     § 63.9(b)(2) and (3).                                   used to generate emission credits for                  on June 30 and December 31,
        (c) If you are required to conduct a                 each credit-generating process unit.                   respectively.
     performance test, you must submit a                        (4) Calculation of the RMR and AMR,                    (5) For each affected source that is
     written notification of intent to conduct               as calculated using Equations 1 through                subject to permitting regulations
     a performance test at least 60 calendar                 3 of § 63.2240(c)(1).                                  pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and
     days before the performance test is                        (5) Documentation of total HAP                      if the permitting authority has
     scheduled to begin as specified in                      measurements made according to                         established dates for submitting
     § 63.7(b)(1).                                           § 63.2240(c)(2)(iv) and other relevant                 semiannual reports pursuant to
        (d) If you are required to conduct a                 documentation to support calculation of                § 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or § 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A),
     performance test, design evaluation, or                 the RMR and AMR.                                       you may submit the first and subsequent
     other initial compliance demonstration                     (6) A summary of the operating                      compliance reports according to the
     as specified in Tables 4, 5, and 6 of this              parameters you will monitor and                        dates the permitting authority has
     subpart, you must submit a Notification                 monitoring methods for each credit-                    established instead of according to the
     of Compliance Status as specified in                    generating process unit.                               dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of
     § 63.9(h)(2)(ii).                                          (g) You must notify the Administrator               this section.
        (1) For each initial compliance                      within 30 days before you take any of                     (c) The compliance report must
     demonstration required in Table 5 or 6                  the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)             contain the information in paragraphs
     of this subpart that does not include a                 through (3) of this section.                           (c)(1) through (8) of this section.


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00044   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                              Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                             1319

       (1) Company name and address.                          RM = Annual percentage of process unit                 comply with the compliance options
       (2) Statement by a responsible official                      uptime during which control device               and operating requirements in this
     with that official’s name, title, and                          is down for routine control device               subpart, you must include the
     signature, certifying the truth, accuracy,                     maintenance                                      information in paragraphs (c)(1) through
     and completeness of the content of the                   PUp = Process unit uptime for the                      (6) and the information in paragraphs
     report.                                                        previous semiannual compliance                   (e)(1) through (11) of this section. This
       (3) Date of report and beginning and                         period                                           includes periods of startup, shutdown,
     ending dates of the reporting period.                    PUc = Process unit uptime for the                      and malfunction and routine control
       (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or                       current semiannual compliance                    device maintenance.
     malfunction during the reporting period                        period                                              (1) The date and time that each
     and you took actions consistent with                     DTp = Control device downtime claimed                  malfunction started and stopped.
     your SSMP, the compliance report must                          under the routine control device                    (2) The date and time that each CMS
     include the information specified in                           maintenance exemption for the                    was inoperative, except for zero (low-
     § 63.10(d)(5)(i).                                              previous semiannual compliance                   level) and high-level checks.
       (5) A description of control device                          period                                              (3) The date, time, and duration that
     maintenance performed while the                          DTc = Control device downtime claimed                  each CMS was out-of-control, including
     control device was offline and one or                          under the routine control device                 the information in § 63.8(c)(8).
     more of the process units controlled by                        maintenance exemption for the                       (4) The date and time that each
     the control device was operating,                              current semiannual compliance                    deviation started and stopped, and
     including the information specified in                         period                                           whether each deviation occurred during
                                                                 (6) The results of any performance                  a period of startup, shutdown, or
     paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this
                                                              tests conducted during the semiannual                  malfunction; during a period of control
     section.
                                                              reporting period.                                      device maintenance covered in your
       (i) The date and time when the                            (7) If there are no deviations from any
     control device was shutdown and                                                                                 approved routine control device
                                                              applicable compliance option or                        maintenance exemption; or during
     restarted.                                               operating requirement, and there are no
       (ii) Identification of the process units                                                                      another period.
                                                              deviations from the requirements for                      (5) A summary of the total duration of
     that were operating and the number of                    work practice requirements in Table 8 of               the deviation during the reporting
     hours that each process unit operated                    this subpart, a statement that there were              period and the total duration as a
     while the control device was offline.                    no deviations from the compliance                      percent of the total source operating
       (iii) A statement of whether or not the                options, operating requirements, or                    time during that reporting period.
     control device maintenance was                           work practice requirements during the                     (6) A breakdown of the total duration
     included in your approved routine                        reporting period.                                      of the deviations during the reporting
     control device maintenance exemption                        (8) If there were no periods during                 period into those that are due to startup,
     developed pursuant to § 63.2251. If the                  which the continuous monitoring                        shutdown, control system problems,
     control device maintenance was                           system(s) (CMS), including CEMS and                    control device maintenance, process
     included in your approved routine                        CPMS, was out-of-control as specified in               problems, other known causes, and
     control device maintenance exemption,                    § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were              other unknown causes.
     then you must report the information in                  no periods during which the CMS was                       (7) A summary of the total duration of
     paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(A) through (C) of                 out-of-control during the reporting                    CMS downtime during the reporting
     this section.                                            period.                                                period and the total duration of CMS
       (A) The total amount of time that each                    (d) For each deviation from a                       downtime as a percent of the total
     process unit controlled by the control                   compliance option or operating                         source operating time during that
     device operated during the semiannual                    requirement and for each deviation from                reporting period.
     compliance period and during the                         the work practice requirements in Table                   (8) A brief description of the process
     previous semiannual compliance                           8 of this subpart that occurs at an                    units.
     period.                                                  affected source where you are not using                   (9) A brief description of the CMS.
       (B) The amount of time that each                       a CMS to comply with the compliance                       (10) The date of the latest CMS
     process unit controlled by the control                   options, operating requirements, or                    certification or audit.
     device operated while the control                        work practice requirements in this                        (11) A description of any changes in
     device was down for maintenance                          subpart, the compliance report must                    CMS, processes, or controls since the
     covered under the routine control                        contain the information in paragraphs                  last reporting period.
     device maintenance exemption during                      (c)(1) through (6) of this section and the                (f) If you comply with the emissions
     the semiannual compliance period and                     information in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2)               averaging compliance option in
     during the previous semiannual                           of this section. This includes periods of              § 63.2240(c), you must include in your
     compliance period.                                       startup, shutdown, and malfunction and                 semiannual compliance report
       (C) Based on the information recorded                  routine control device maintenance.                    calculations based on operating data
     under paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(A) and (B) of                  (1) The total operating time of each                from the semiannual reporting period
     this section for each process unit,                      affected source during the reporting                   that demonstrate that actual mass
     compute the annual percent of process                    period.                                                removal equals or exceeds the required
     unit operating uptime during which the                      (2) Information on the number,                      mass removal.
     control device was offline for routine                   duration, and cause of deviations                         (g) Each affected source that has
     maintenance using Equation 1 of this                     (including unknown cause, if                           obtained a title V operating permit
     section.                                                 applicable), as applicable, and the                    pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must
                                                              corrective action taken.                               report all deviations as defined in this
                      PU p + PU c                                (e) For each deviation from a                       subpart in the semiannual monitoring
            RM =                            ( Eq. 1)          compliance option or operating                         report required by § 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or
                      DTp + DTc
                                                              requirement occurring at an affected                   § 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected source
                                                                                                                                                                   EP09JA03.013</MATH>




     Where:                                                   source where you are using a CMS to                    submits a compliance report pursuant to


VerDate Dec<13>2002    16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00045   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1320                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     Table 9 of this subpart along with, or as               all information required to calculate                  § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in
     part of, the semiannual monitoring                      emission debits and credits.                           § 63.90.
     report required by § 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or                                                                       (3) Approval of major alternatives to
     § 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance                § 63.2283 In what form and how long must               monitoring as specified in § 63.8(f) and
                                                             I keep my records?
     report includes all required information                                                                       as defined in § 63.90.
     concerning deviations from any                            (a) Your records must be in a form                     (4) Approval of major alternatives to
     compliance option, operating                            suitable and readily available for                     recordkeeping and reporting as
     requirement, or work practice                           expeditious review as specified in                     specified in § 63.10(f) and as defined in
     requirement in this subpart, submission                 § 63.10(b)(1).                                         § 63.90.
     of the compliance report shall be                         (b) As specified in § 63.10(b)(1), you
                                                             must keep each record for 5 years                      § 63.2292   What definitions apply to this
     deemed to satisfy any obligation to                                                                            subpart?
     report the same deviations in the                       following the date of each occurrence,
                                                             measurement, maintenance, corrective                      Terms used in this subpart are
     semiannual monitoring report.
                                                             action, report, or record.                             defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40 CFR
     However, submission of a compliance
                                                               (c) You must keep each record on site                63.2, the General Provisions, and in this
     report shall not otherwise affect any
                                                             for at least 2 years after the date of each            section as follows:
     obligation the affected source may have                                                                           Affected source means the collection
     to report deviations from permit                        occurrence, measurement, maintenance,
                                                             corrective action, report, or record                   of dryers, blenders, formers, presses,
     requirements to the permitting                                                                                 board coolers, and other process units
     authority.                                              according to § 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
                                                             the records offsite for the remaining 3                associated with the manufacturing of
     § 63.2282   What records must I keep?                   years.                                                 plywood and composite wood products
       (a) You must keep the records listed                                                                         at a plant site. The affected source
                                                             Other Requirements and Information                     includes, but is not limited to, green end
     in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
     section.                                                § 63.2290 What parts of the General                    operations, drying operations, blending
       (1) A copy of each notification and                   Provisions apply to me?                                and forming operations, pressing and
     report that you submitted to comply                       Table 10 of this subpart shows which                 board cooling operations, and
     with this subpart, including all                        parts of the General Provisions in                     miscellaneous finishing operations
     documentation supporting any Initial                    §§ 63.1 through 63.13 apply to you.                    (such as sanding, sawing, patching, edge
     Notification or Notification of                                                                                sealing, and other finishing operations
     Compliance Status that you submitted,                   § 63.2291 Who implements and enforces                  not subject to other NESHAP). The
                                                             this subpart?                                          affected source also includes onsite
     according to the requirements in
     § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).                                        (a) This subpart can be implemented                 storage of raw materials used in the
       (2) The records in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii)                  and enforced by the U.S. EPA or a                      manufacture of plywood and/or
     through (v) related                                     delegated authority such as your State,                composite wood products, such as
       to startup, shutdown, and                             local, or tribal agency. If the EPA                    resins; onsite wastewater treatment
     malfunction.                                            Administrator has delegated authority to               operations specifically associated with
       (3) The records in § 63.2250(e)                       your State, local, or tribal agency, then              plywood and composite wood products
     relating to control device maintenance                  that agency has the authority to                       manufacturing; and miscellaneous
     and documentation of your approved                      implement and enforce this subpart.                    coating operations (defined elsewhere in
     routine control device maintenance                      You should contact your EPA Regional                   this section). The affected source
     exemption, if you request such an                       Office to find out if this subpart is                  includes lumber kilns at PCWP
     exemption under § 63.2251.                              delegated to your State, local, or tribal              manufacturing facilities and at any other
       (4) Records of performance tests and                  agency.                                                kind of facility.
     performance evaluations as required in                     (b) In delegating implementation and                   Biofilter means an enclosed control
     § 63.10(b)(2)(viii).                                    enforcement authority of this subpart to               system such as a tank or series of tanks
       (b) You must keep the records                         a State, local, or tribal agency under                 with a fixed roof that are filled with
     required in Tables 7 and 8 of this                      section 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the                 media (such as bark) and use
     subpart to show continuous compliance                   authorities contained in paragraph (c) of              microbiological activity to transform
     with each compliance option, operating                  this section are retained by the EPA                   organic pollutants in a process exhaust
     requirement, and work practice                          Administrator and are not transferred to               stream to innocuous compounds such as
     requirement that applies to you.                        the State, local, or tribal agency.                    carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic
       (c) For each CEMS, you must keep the                     (c) The authorities that will not be                salts. Wastewater treatment systems
     following records.                                      delegated to State, local, or tribal                   such as aeration lagoons or activated
       (1) Records described in                              agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1)               sludge systems are not considered to be
     § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).                         through (4) of this section.                           biofilters.
       (2) Previous (i.e., superseded)                          (1) Approval of alternatives to the                    Capture device means a hood,
     versions of the performance evaluation                  compliance options, operating                          enclosure, or other means of collecting
     plan as required in § 63.8(d)(3).                       requirements, and work practice                        emissions into a duct so that the
       (3) Request for alternatives to relative              requirements in §§ 63.2240 and 63.2241                 emissions can be measured.
     accuracy testing for CEMS as required in                as specified in § 63.6(g). For the                        Capture efficiency means the fraction
     § 63.8(f)(6)(i).                                        purposes of delegation authority under                 (expressed as a percentage) of the
       (4) Records of the date and time that                 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, ‘‘compliance                pollutants from an emission source that
     each deviation started and stopped, and                 options’’ represent ‘‘emission limits’’;               are collected by a capture device.
     whether the deviation occurred during a                 ‘‘operating requirements’’ represent                      Catalytic oxidizer means a control
     period of startup, shutdown, or                         ‘‘operating limits’’; and ‘‘work practice              system that combusts or oxidizes, in the
     malfunction or during another period.                   requirements’’ represent ‘‘work practice               presence of a catalyst, exhaust gas from
       (d) If you comply with the emissions                  standards.’’                                           a process unit. Catalytic oxidizers
     averaging compliance option in                             (2) Approval of major alternatives to               include regenerative catalytic oxidizers
     § 63.2240(c), you must keep records of                  test methods as specified in                           and thermal catalytic oxidizers.


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00046   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                              1321

        Control device means any equipment                   wet forming and compacting a mat of                       Laminated veneer lumber (LVL)
     that reduces the quantity of a hazardous                fibers. Fiberboard density is less than                means a composite product formed into
     air pollutant that is emitted to the air.               0.50 grams per cubic centimeter (31.5                  a billet made from layers of resinated
     The device may destroy the hazardous                    pounds per cubic foot).                                wood veneer sheets or pieces pressed
     air pollutant or secure the hazardous air                  Fiberboard mat dryer means a dryer                  together with the grain of each veneer
     pollutant for subsequent recovery.                      used to reduce the moisture of wet-                    aligned primarily along the length of the
     Control devices include, but are not                    formed wood fiber mats by operation at                 finished product. Laminated veneer
     limited to, thermal or catalytic                        elevated temperature. A fiberboard mat                 lumber includes parallel strand lumber
     oxidizers, combustion units that                        dryer is a process unit.                               (PSL).
     incinerate process exhausts, biofilters,                   Furnish means the fibers, particles, or                Lumber kiln means an enclosed dryer
     and condensers.                                         strands used for making boards.                        operated at elevated temperature to
        Control system or add-on control                        Glue-laminated beam means a                         reduce the moisture content of lumber.
     system means the combination of                         structural wood beam made by bonding                      Medium density fiberboard (MDF)
     capture and control devices used to                     lumber together along its faces with                   means a composite panel composed of
     reduce hazardous air pollutant                          resin.                                                 cellulosic fibers (usually wood) made by
     emissions to the atmosphere.                               Green rotary dryer means a rotary                   dry forming and pressing of a resinated
        Deviation means any instance in                      dryer that dries wood particles or fibers              fiber mat.
     which an affected source subject to this                with an inlet moisture content of greater                 Method detection limit means the
     subpart, or an owner or operator of such                than 30 percent (by weight, dry basis) at              minimum concentration of an analyte
     a source:                                               any dryer inlet temperature or operates                that can be determined with 99 percent
        (1) Fails to meet any requirement or                 with an inlet temperature of greater than              confidence that the true value is greater
     obligation established by this subpart                  600 °F with any inlet moisture content.                than zero.
     including, but not limited to, any                      A green rotary dryer is a process unit.                   Miscellaneous coating operations
     compliance option, operating                               Hardboard means a composite panel                   means application of any of the
     requirement, or work practice                           composed of cellulosic fibers made by                  following to plywood or composite
     requirement;                                            dry or wet forming and pressing of a                   wood products: Edge seals, moisture
        (2) Fails to meet any term or condition              resinated fiber mat. Hardboard has a                   sealants, anti-skid coatings, company
     that is adopted to implement an                         density of 0.50 to 1.20 grams per cubic                logos, trademark or grade stamps, nail
     applicable requirement in this subpart,                 centimeter (31.5 to 75 pounds per cubic                lines, synthetic patches, wood patches,
     and that is included in the operating                   foot).                                                 wood putty, concrete forming oils, glues
     permit for any affected source required                    Hardboard oven means an oven used                   for veneer composing, and shelving
     to obtain such a permit; or                             to heat treat or temper hardboard after                edge fillers. Miscellaneous coating
        (3) Fails to meet any compliance                                                                            operations also include the application
                                                             hot pressing. Humidification chambers
     option, operating requirement, or work                                                                         of primer to OSB siding that occurs at
                                                             are not considered as part of hardboard
     practice requirement in this subpart                                                                           the same site as OSB manufacture.
                                                             ovens. A hardboard oven is a process
     during startup, shutdown, or                                                                                      MSF means thousand square feet (92.9
                                                             unit.
     malfunction, regardless or whether or                                                                          square meters). Square footage of panels
                                                                Hardwood means the wood of a
     not such failure is permitted by this                                                                          is usually measured on a thickness
                                                             broad-leafed tree, either deciduous or
     subpart.                                                                                                       basis, such as 3⁄8-inch, to define the total
        Dryer heated zones means the zones                   evergreen. Examples of hardwoods
                                                                                                                    volume of panels. Equation 6 of
     of a softwood veneer dryer or fiberboard                include (but are not limited to) aspen,
                                                                                                                    § 63.2262(j) shows how to convert from
     mat dryer that are equipped with                        birch, and oak.
                                                                                                                    one thickness basis to another.
     heating and hot air circulation units.                     Hardwood veneer dryer means a dryer                    Nondetect data means, for the
     The cooling zone(s) of the dryer through                that removes excess moisture from                      purposes of this subpart, any value that
     which ambient air is blown are not part                 veneer by conveying the veneer through                 is below the method detection limit.
     of the dryer heated zones.                              a heated medium on rollers, belts,                        Oriented strandboard (OSB) means a
        Dry rotary dryer means a rotary dryer                cables, or wire mesh. Hardwood veneer                  composite panel produced from thin
     that dries wood particles or fibers with                dryers are used to dry veneer with less                wood strands cut from whole logs,
     a maximum inlet moisture content of                     than 30 percent softwood species on an                 formed into resinated layers (with the
     less than or equal to 30 percent (by                    annual volume basis. Veneer kilns that                 grain of strands in one layer oriented
     weight, dry basis) and operates with a                  operate as batch units, veneer dryers                  perpendicular to the strands in adjacent
     maximum inlet temperature of less than                  heated by radio frequency or                           layers), and pressed.
     or equal to 600°F. A dry rotary dryer is                microwaves that are used to redry                         Oven-dried ton(s) (ODT) means tons
     a process unit.                                         veneer, and veneer redryers (defined                   of wood dried until all of the moisture
        Dry forming means the process of                     elsewhere in this section) that are                    in the wood is removed. One oven-dried
     making a mat of resinated fiber to be                   heated by conventional means are not                   ton equals 907 oven-dried kilograms.
     compressed into a reconstituted wood                    considered to be hardwood veneer                          Particle means a distinct fraction of
     product such as particleboard, oriented                 dryers. A hardwood veneer dryer is a                   wood or other cellulosic material
     strandboard (OSB), medium density                       process unit.                                          produced mechanically and used as the
     fiberboard (MDF), or hardboard.                            Kiln-dried lumber means solid wood                  aggregate for a particleboard. Particles
        Fiber means the slender threadlike                   lumber that has been dried in a lumber                 are larger in size than fibers.
     elements of wood or similar cellulosic                  kiln.                                                     Particleboard means a composite
     material, which are separated by                           Laminated strand lumber (LSL) means                 panel composed of cellulosic materials
     chemical and/or mechanical means, as                    a composite product formed into a billet               (usually wood or agricultural fiber) in
     in pulping, that can be formed into                     made of thin wood strands cut from                     the form of discrete pieces or particles,
     boards.                                                 whole logs, resinated, and pressed                     as distinguished from fibers, which are
        Fiberboard means a composite panel                   together with the grain of each strand                 pressed together with resin.
     composed of cellulosic fibers (usually                  oriented parallel to the length of the                    Permanent total enclosure (PTE)
     wood or agricultural material) made by                  finished product.                                      means a permanently installed


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00047   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1322                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     containment that meets the criteria of                  and star type coolers commonly found                      Startup, initial means the first time
     Method 204 (40 CFR part 51, appendix                    at MDF and particleboard plants. Board                 equipment is put into operation. Initial
     M).                                                     coolers do not include cooling sections                startup does not include operation
        Plant site means all contiguous or                   of dryers (e.g., veneer dryers or                      solely for testing equipment. Initial
     adjoining property that is under                        fiberboard mat dryers) or coolers                      startup does not include subsequent
     common control, including properties                    integrated into or following hardboard                 startups (as defined in this section)
     that are separated only by a road or                    bake ovens or humidifiers. A                           following malfunction or shutdowns or
     other public right-of-way. Common                       reconstituted wood product board                       following changes in product or
     control includes properties that are                    cooler is a process unit.                              between batch operations. Initial startup
     owned, leased, or operated by the same                     Reconstituted wood product press                    does not include startup of equipment
     entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any               means a press, including (if applicable)               that occurred when the source was an
     combination thereof.                                    the press unloader, that presses a                     area source.
        Plywood and composite wood                           resinated mat of wood fibers, particles,                  Startup, shutdown, and malfunction
     products (PCWP) manufacturing facility                  or strands between hot platens or hot                  plan (SSMP) means a plan developed
     means a plant site that manufactures                    rollers to compact and set the mat into                according to the provisions of
     plywood and/or composite wood                           a panel by simultaneous application of                 § 63.6(e)(3).
     products by bonding wood material                       heat and pressure. Reconstituted wood                     Strand means a long (with respect to
     (fibers, particles, strands, veneers, etc.)             product presses are used in the                        thickness and width), flat wood piece
     or agricultural fiber, generally with resin             manufacture of hardboard, medium                       specially cut from a log for use in
     under heat and pressure, to form a                      density fiberboard, particleboard, and                 oriented strandboard, laminated strand
     structural panel or engineered wood                     oriented strandboard. Extruders are not                lumber, or other wood strand-based
     product. Plywood and composite wood                     considered to be reconstituted wood                    product.
     products manufacturing facilities also                  product presses. A reconstituted wood                     Strand dryer means a dryer operated
     include facilities that manufacture dry                 product press is a process unit.                       at elevated temperature and used to
     veneer and lumber kilns located at any                     Representative operating conditions                 reduce the moisture of wood strands
     facility. Plywood and composite wood                    means operation of a process unit                      used in the manufacture of OSB, LSL, or
     products include (but are not limited to)               during performance testing under the                   other wood strand-based products. A
     plywood, veneer, particleboard,                         conditions that the process unit will                  strand dryer is a process unit.
     oriented strandboard, hardboard,                        typically be operating in the future,                     Temporary total enclosure (TTE)
     fiberboard, medium density fiberboard,                  including use of a representative range                means an enclosure constructed for the
     laminated strand lumber, laminated                      of materials (e.g., wood material of a                 purpose of measuring the capture
     veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-dried                typical species mix and moisture                       efficiency of pollutants emitted from a
     lumber, and glue-laminated beams.                       content or typical resin formulation)                  given source, as defined in Method 204
        Plywood means a panel product                        and representative operating                           of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M.
     consisting of layers of wood veneers hot                temperature range.                                        Thermal oxidizer means a control
     pressed together with resin. Plywood                       Resin means the synthetic adhesive                  system that combusts or oxidizes
     includes panel products made by hot                     (including glue) or natural binder,                    exhaust gas from a process unit.
     pressing (with resin) veneers to a                      including additives, used to bond wood                 Thermal oxidizers include regenerative
     substrate such as particleboard, MDF, or                or other cellulosic materials together to              thermal oxidizers and burners or
     lumber.                                                 produce plywood and composite wood                     combustion units that accept process
        Press predryer means a dryer used to                 products.                                              exhausts in the flame zone.
     reduce the moisture and elevate the                        Responsible official means                             Total hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
     temperature of a wet-formed fiber mat                   responsible official as defined in 40 CFR              emissions means, for purposes of this
     before the mat enters a hot press. A                    70.2 and 71.2.                                         rulemaking, the sum of the emissions of
     press predryer is a process unit.                          Softwood means the wood of a                        the following six compounds:
        Pressurized refiner means a piece of                 coniferous tree. Examples of softwoods                 acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde,
     equipment operated under pressure for                   include (but are not limited to) Southern              methanol, phenol, and
     preheating (usually by steaming) wood                   yellow pine, Douglas fir, and White                    propionaldehyde.
     material and refining (rubbing or                       spruce.                                                   Tube dryer means a single-stage or
     grinding) the wood material into fibers.                   Softwood veneer dryer means a dryer                 multistage dryer operated at elevated
     Pressurized refiners are operated with                  that removes excess moisture from                      temperature and used to reduce the
     continuous infeed and outfeed of wood                   veneer by conveying the veneer through                 moisture of wood fibers or particles as
     material and maintain elevated internal                 a heated medium on rollers, belts,                     they are conveyed (usually
     pressures (i.e., there is no pressure                   cables, or wire mesh. Softwood veneer                  pneumatically) through the dryer. Resin
     release) throughout the preheating and                  dryers are used to dry veneer with                     may or may not be applied to the wood
     refining process. A pressurized refiner is              greater than or equal to 30 percent                    material before it enters the tube dryer.
     a process unit.                                         softwood species on an annual volume                   A tube dryer is a process unit.
        Process unit means equipment                         basis. Veneer kilns that operate as batch                 Veneer means thin sheets of wood
     classified according to its function such               units, veneer dryers heated by radio                   peeled or sliced from logs for use in the
     as a blender, dryer, press, former, or                  frequency or microwaves that are used                  manufacture of wood products such as
     board cooler.                                           to redry veneer, and veneer redryers                   plywood, laminated veneer lumber, or
        Reconstituted wood product board                     (defined elsewhere in this section) that               other products.
     cooler means a piece of equipment                       are heated by conventional means are                      Veneer redryer means a dryer heated
     designed to reduce the temperature of a                 not considered to be softwood veneer                   by conventional means, such as direct
     board by means of forced air or                         dryers. A softwood veneer dryer is a                   wood-fired, direct-gas-fired, or steam
     convection within a controlled time                     process unit.                                          heated, that is used to redry veneer that
     period after the board exits the                           Startup means bringing equipment                    has been previously dried. Because the
     reconstituted wood product press                        online and starting the production                     veneer dried in a veneer redryer has
     unloader. Board coolers include wicket                  process.                                               been previously dried, the inlet


VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00048   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                                      Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                                                          1323

     moisture content of the veneer entering                                   additives into a mat of fibers to be                                       web cut from a panel such as plywood
     the redryer is less than 25 percent (by                                   compressed into a fiberboard or                                            or oriented strandboard.
     weight, dry basis). Batch units used to                                   hardboard product.                                                           Work practice requirement means any
     redry veneer (such as redry cookers) are                                    Wood I-joists means a structural wood                                    design, equipment, work practice, or
     not considered to be veneer redryers. A
                                                                               beam with an I-shaped cross section                                        operational standard, or combination
     veneer redryer is a process unit.
       Wet forming means the process of                                        formed by bonding (with resin) wood or                                     thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to
     making a slurry of water, fiber, and                                      laminated veneer lumber flanges onto a                                     section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

                                             TABLE 1A TO SUBPART DDDD.—PRODUCTION-BASED COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
                                                                                                                                                                                             You must meet the
                                                                                                                                                                                             following production-
     For the following process units . . .                                                                                                                                                   based compliance
                                                                                                                                                                                             option (total HAPa
                                                                                                                                                                                             basis) . . .

     (1) Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones (at new affected sources only) ..............................................................................                                     0.022 lb/MSF 1⁄2″
     (2) Green rotary dryers .........................................................................................................................................................       0.058 lb/ODT
     (3) Hardboard ovens .............................................................................................................................................................       0.022 lb/MSF 1⁄8″
     (4) Press predryers (at new affected sources only) .............................................................................................................                        0.037 lb/MSF 1⁄2″
     (5) Pressurized refiners ........................................................................................................................................................       0.039 lb/ODT
     (6) Tube dryers .....................................................................................................................................................................   0.26 lb/ODT
     (7) Reconstituted wood product board coolers (at new affected sources only) ...................................................................                                         0.015 lb/MSF 3⁄4″
     (8) Reconstituted wood product presses ..............................................................................................................................                   0.30 lb/MSF 3⁄4″
     (9) Softwood veneer dryer heated zones .............................................................................................................................                    0.022 lb/MSF 3⁄8″
     (10) Strand dryers .................................................................................................................................................................    0.18 lb/ODT
       a Total HAP, as defined in § 63.2292, includes acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. lb/ODT = pounds
     per oven dried ton; lb/MSF = pounds per thousand square feet with a specified thickness basis (inches). Section 63.2262(j) shows how to con-
     vert from one thickness basis to another.

                                      TABLE 1B TO SUBPART DDDD.—ADD-ON CONTROL SYSTEMS COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
                                                                                                                     You must comply with one of the following six compliance options by
     For each of the following process units . . .                                                                   using an emissions control system . . .

     Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones (at new affected sources only);                                               (1) Reduce emissions of total HAP, measured as THC (as carbon),a by
       Green rotary dryers; Hardboard ovens; Press predryers (at new af-                                               90 percent; or
       fected sources only); Pressurized refiners; Tube dryers; Reconsti-                                            (2) Limit emissions of total HAP, measured as THC (as carbon),a to 20
       tuted wood product board coolers (at new affected sources only);                                                parts per million by volume, dry (ppmvd); or
       Reconstituted wood product presses; Softwood veneer dryer heated                                              (3) Reduce methanol emissions by 90 percent; or
       zones; and Strand dryers.                                                                                     (4) Limit methanol emissions to less than or equal to 1 ppmvd if uncon-
                                                                                                                       trolled methanol emissions entering the control device are greater
                                                                                                                       than or equal to 10 ppmvd; or
                                                                                                                     (5) Reduce formaldehyde emissions by 90 percent; or
                                                                                                                     (6) Limit formaldehyde emissions to less than or equal to 1 ppmvd if
                                                                                                                       uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions entering the control device are
                                                                                                                       greater than or equal to 10 ppmvd.
        a You    may choose to subtract methane from THC as carbon measurements.

                                                             TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DDDD.—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
     If you operate a(n) . . .                                You must . . .                                         Or you must . . .                                       Or you must . . .

     (1) Thermal oxidizer .......................             Maintain the 3-hour block average                      Maintain the 3-hour block average                       Maintain the 3-hour block average
                                                               firebox temperature above the                          firebox temperature above the                           THC concentration a in the ther-
                                                               minimum temperature estab-                             minimum temperature estab-                              mal oxidizer exhaust below the
                                                               lished during the performance                          lished during the performance                           maximum concentration estab-
                                                               test; AND maintain in 3-hour                           test; AND maintain the 3-hour                           lished during performance test.
                                                               block average static pressure at                       block average gas flow at the
                                                               the inlet of the thermal oxidizer                      outlet of the thermal oxidizer
                                                               within the operating range es-                         below the maximum flow rate
                                                               tablished during the perform-                          established during the perform-
                                                               ance test.                                             ance test.




VerDate Dec<13>2002         16:26 Jan 08, 2003        Jkt 200001       PO 00000       Frm 00049        Fmt 4701      Sfmt 4702       E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM             09JAP2
     1324                           Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

                                               TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DDDD.—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS—Continued
     If you operate a(n) . . .                             You must . . .                          Or you must . . .                      Or you must . . .

     (2) Catalytic oxidizer ......................         Maintain the 3-hour block average       Maintain the 3-hour block average      Maintain the 3-hour block average
                                                            temperature upstream of the             temperature upstrem of the cat-        THC concentration a in the cata-
                                                            catalyst bed above the min-             alyst bed above the minimum            lytic oxidizer exhaust below the
                                                            imum temperature established            temperature established during         maximum concentration estab-
                                                            during the performance test;            the performance test; AND              lished during the performance
                                                            AND maintain the 3-hour block           maintain the 3-hour block aver-        test.
                                                            average static pressure at the          age gas flow at the outlet of the
                                                            inlet of the catalytic oxidizer         catalytic oxidizer below the
                                                            within the operating range es-          maximum flow rate established
                                                            tablished during the perform-           during the performance test.
                                                            ance test.

     (3) Biofilter .....................................   Maintain the temperature of the         Maintain the 3-hour block average
                                                            air stream entering the biofilter,      THC concentration a in the bio-
                                                            pH of the biofilter effluent, and       filter exhaust below the max-
                                                            pressure drop across the bio-           imum concentration established
                                                            filter bed within the ranges es-        during the performance test.
                                                            tablished       according       to
                                                            § 63.2262(m).

     (4) Control device other than a                       Petition the Administrator for site-    Maintain the 3-hour block average
       thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxi-                      specific operating parameter(s)        THC concentration a in the con-
       dizer, or biofilter.                                  to be established during the           trol device exhaust below the
                                                             performance test and maintain          maximu concentration estab-
                                                             the average operating param-           lished during the performance
                                                             eter(s) within the range(s) es-        test.
                                                             tablished during the perform-
                                                             ance test.

     (5) Process unit that meets a com-                    Maintain the 3-hour block average       Maintain the 3-hour block average
       pliance option in Table 1A of this                   inlet temperature below the             tHC concentration a in the proc-
       subpart.                                             maximum inlet temperature es-           ess unit exhaust below the
                                                            tablished during the perform-           maximum concentration estab-
                                                            ance test if the process unit is a      lished during the performance
                                                            green rotary dryer, tube dryer,         test.
                                                            or strand dryer; OR maintain
                                                            the 3-hour block average proc-
                                                            ess unit operating temperature
                                                            below the maximum operating
                                                            temperature established during
                                                            the performance test if the
                                                            process unit is a hardboard
                                                            oven, press predryer, or recon-
                                                            stituted wood product press;
                                                            OR maintain the 3-hour block
                                                            average operating temperature
                                                            in each of the hot zones below
                                                            the maximum hot zone tem-
                                                            peratures established during
                                                            the performance test if the
                                                            process unit is a fiberboard mat
                                                            dryer or softwood veneer dryer.
        a You   may choose to substract methane from THC measurements.

                                                      TABLE 3 TO SUBPART DDDD.—WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS
     For the following process units at
     existing or new affected sources                      You must . . .
     . . .

     (1) Dry rotary dryers .......................         Process furnish with a 24-hour block average inlet moisture content of less than or equal to 30 percent (by
                                                             weight, dry basis); AND operate with a 24-hour block average inlet dryer temperature of less than or
                                                             equal to 600°F.

     (2) Hardwood veneer dryers ...........                Process less than 30 volume percent softwood species on an annual basis.

     (3) Softwood veneer dryers ............               Minimize fugitive emissions from the dryer doors through (proper maintenance procedures) and the green
                                                             end of the dryers (though proper balancing of the heated zone exhausts).




VerDate Dec<13>2002        16:26 Jan 08, 2003       Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00050   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                                Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                 1325

                                     TABLE 3 TO SUBPART DDDD.—WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS—Continued
     For the following process units at
     existing or new affected sources                You must . . .
     . . .

     (4) Veneer redryers .........................   Process veneer that has been previously dried, such that the 24-hour block average inlet moisture content
                                                       of the veneer is less than or equal to 25 percent (by weight, dry basis).


                                        TABLE 4 TO SUBPART DDDD.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS
     For . . .                                                          You must . . .                             Using . . .

     (1) Each process unit subject to a compliance option               Select sampling port’s location and        Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (as
       in Table 1A or 1B of this subpart or used in cal-                  the number of traverse ports.             appropriate).
       culation of an emissions average under
       § 63.2240(c).

     (2) Each process unit subject to a compliance option               Determine velocity and volumetric          Method 2 in addition to Method 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or
       in Table 1A or 1B of this subpart or used in cal-                  flow rate.                                2G in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 (as appro-
       culation of an emissions average under                                                                       priate).
       § 63.2240(c).

     (3) Each process unit subject to a compliance option               Conduct gas          molecular    weight   Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A to 40 CFR part
       in Table 1A or 1B of this subpart or used in cal-                  analysis.                                 60 (as appropriate).
       culation of an emissions average under
       § 63.2240(c).

     (4) Each process unit subject to a compliance option               Measure moisture content of the            Method 4 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
       in Table 1A or 1B of this subpart or used in cal-                 stack gas.
       culation of an emissions average under
       § 63.2240(c).

     (5) Each process unit subject to a compliance option               Measure emissions of total HAP             Method 25A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. You
       in Table 1B of this subpart for which you choose to               as THC.                                    may measure emissions of methane using EPA
       demonstrate compliance using a total HAP as THC                                                              Method 18 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and
       compliance option.                                                                                           subtract the methane emissions from the emis-
                                                                                                                    sions of total HAP as THC.

     (6) Each process unit subject to a compliance option               Measure emissions of total HAP             Method 320 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR
       in Table 1A; OR for each process unit used in cal-                (as defined in § 63.2292).                 the NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP–99.01 (incor-
       culation of an emissions average under                                                                       porated by reference, see § 63.14(f)).
       § 63.2240(c).

     (7) Each process unit subject to a compliance option               Measure emissions of methanol ...          Method 308 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR
       in Table 1B of this subpart for which you choose to                                                          Method 320 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR
       demonstrate compliance using a methanol compli-                                                              the NCASI Method CI/WP–98.01 (incorporated by
       ance option.                                                                                                 reference, see § 63.14(f)); OR the NCASI Method
                                                                                                                    IM/CAN/WP–99.01 (incorporated by reference,
                                                                                                                    see § 63.14(f)).

     (8) Each process unit subject to a compliance option               Measure emissions of formalde-             Method 316 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR
       in Table 1B of this subpart for which you choose to               hyde.                                      Method 320 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63; OR
       demonstrate compliance using a formaldehyde                                                                  Method 0011 in ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating
       compliance option.                                                                                           Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods’’ (EPA
                                                                                                                    Publication No. SW–846) for formaldehyde; OR
                                                                                                                    the NCASI Method CI/WP–98.01 (incorporated by
                                                                                                                    reference, see § 63.14(f)); OR the NCASI Method
                                                                                                                    IM/CAN/WP–99.01 (incorporated by reference,
                                                                                                                    see § 63.14(f)).

     (9) Each reconstituted wood product press at a new                 Determine the percent capture effi-        Methods 204 and 204A through 204F of 40 CFR
       or existing affected source or reconstituted wood                  ciency of the enclosure directing         part 51, appendix M. Enclosures that meet the
       product board cooler at a new affected source                      emissions to an add-on control            Method 204 requirements for a PTE are assumed
       subject to a compliance option in Table 1B or used                 device.                                   to have a capture efficiency of 100%. Enclosures
       in calculation of an emissions average under                                                                 that do not meet the PTE requirements must de-
       § 63.2240(c).                                                                                                termine the capture efficiency by constructing a
                                                                                                                    TTE according to the requirements of Method 204
                                                                                                                    and applying Methods 204A through 204F (as ap-
                                                                                                                    propriate). As an alternative to Methods 204 and
                                                                                                                    204A through 204F, you may use the tracer gas
                                                                                                                    method contained in appendix A to this subpart.




VerDate Dec<13>2002     16:26 Jan 08, 2003    Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00051   Fmt 4701    Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM    09JAP2
     1326                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

                           TABLE 4 TO SUBPART DDDD.—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued
     For . . .                                                       You must . . .                           Using . . .

     (10) Each reconstituted wood product press at a new             Determine the percent capture effi-      A TTE and Methods 204 and 204A through 204F
       or existing affected source or reconstituted wood               ciency.                                  (as appropriate) of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M.
       product board cooler at a new affected source                                                            As an alternative to installing a TTE and using
       subject to a compliance option in Table 1A of this                                                       Methods 204 and 204A through 204F, you may
       subpart.                                                                                                 use the tracer gas method contained in appendix
                                                                                                                A to this subpart.

     (11) Each process unit subject to a compliance op-              Establish the site-specific oper-        Data from the parameter monitoring system or THC
       tion in Tables 1A and 1B of this subpart or used in             ating requirements (including the        CEMS and the applicable performance test meth-
       calculation of emissions averaging credits under                parameter limits or THC con-             od(s).
       § 63.2240(c).                                                   centration limits) in Table 2 of
                                                                       this subpart.


             TABLE 5 TO SUBPART DDDD.—PERFORMANCE TESTING AND INITIAL COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATIONS FOR THE
                                   COMPLIANCE OPTIONS AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
                                                 For the following compliance op-
     For each . . .                              tions and operating require-              You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .
                                                 ments . . .

     (1) Process unit listed in Table 1A         Meet the production-based compli-         The average total HAP emissions measured using the methods in
       of this subpart.                           ance options listed in Table 1A            Table 4 of this subpart over the 3-hour initial performance test are
                                                  of this subpart.                           no greater than the compliance option in Table 1A of this subpart;
                                                                                             AND you have a record of the operating requirement(s) listed in
                                                                                             Table 2 of this subpart for the process unit over the performance
                                                                                             test during which emissions did not exceed the compliance option
                                                                                             value.

     (2) Process unit listed in Table 1B         Reduce emissions of total HAP,            Total HAP emissions, measured using the methods in Table 4 of this
       of this subpart.                            measured as THC, by 90 per-               subpart over the 3-hour performance test, are reduced by at least
                                                   cent.                                     90 percent, as calculated using the procedures in § 63.2262; AND
                                                                                             you have a record of the operating requirement(s) listed in Table 2
                                                                                             of this subpart for the process unit over the performance test dur-
                                                                                             ing which emissions were reduced by at least 90 percent.

     (3) Process unit listed in Table 1B         Limit emissions of total HAP,             The average total HAP emissions, measured using the methods in
       of this subpart.                            measured as THC, to 20 ppmvd.             Table 4 of this subpart over the 3-hour initial performance test, do
                                                                                             not exceed 20 ppmvd; AND you have a record of the operating re-
                                                                                             quirement(s) listed in Table 2 of this subpart for the process unit
                                                                                             over the performance test during which emissions did not exceed
                                                                                             20 ppmvd.

     (4) Process unit listed in Table 1B         Reduce methanol or formaldehyde           The methanol or formaldehyde emissions measured using the meth-
       of this subpart.                            emissions by 90 percent.                  ods in Table 4 of this subpart over the 3-hour initial performance
                                                                                             test, are reduced by at least 90 percent, as calculated using the
                                                                                             procedures in § 63.2262; AND you have a record of the operating
                                                                                             requirement(s) listed in Table 2 of this subpart for the process unit
                                                                                             over the performance test during which emissions were reduced by
                                                                                             at least 90 percent.

     (5) Process unit listed in Table 1B         Limit methanol or formaldehyde            The average methanol or formaldehyde emissions, measured using
       of this subpart.                            emissions to less than or equal           the methods in Table 4 of this subpart over the 3-hour initial per-
                                                   to 1 ppmvd (if uncontrolled               formance test, do not exceed 1 ppmvd; AND you have a record of
                                                   emissions are greater than or             the operating requirement(s) listed in Table 2 of this subpart for the
                                                   equal to 10 ppmvd).                       process unit over the performance test during which emissions did
                                                                                             not exceed 1 ppmvd. If the process unit is a reconstituted wood
                                                                                             product press or a reconstituted wood product board cooler, your
                                                                                             capture device either meets the EPA Method 204 criteria for a PTE
                                                                                             or achieves a capture efficiency of greater than or equal to 95 per-
                                                                                             cent.

     (6) Reconstituted wood product              Compliance options in Tables 1A           You submit the results of capture efficiency verification using the
       press at a new or existing af-              and 1B of this subpart or the             methods in Table 4 of this subpart with your Notification of Compli-
       fected source, or reconstituted             emissions averaging compliance            ance Status.
       wood product board cooler at a              option in § 63.2240(c).
       new affected source.




VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00052   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                                 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                1327

              TABLE 5 TO SUBPART DDDD.—PERFORMANCE TESTING AND INITIAL COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATIONS FOR THE
                               COMPLIANCE OPTIONS AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS—Continued
                                                      For the following compliance op-
     For each . . .                                   tions and operating require-            You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .
                                                      ments . . .

     (7) Process unit listed in Table 1B              Compliance options in Table 1B of       You submit with your Notification of Compliance Status documenta-
       of this subpart controlled by rout-              this subpart or the emissions           tion showing that your combustion unit has a heat input capacity
       ing exhaust to a combustion unit                 averaging compliance option in          greater than or equal to 44 megawatts and that the process ex-
       with heat input capacity greater                 § 63.2240(c).                           hausts controlled enter into the flame zone.
       than or equal to 44 megawatts.


              TABLE 6 TO SUBPART DDDD.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATIONS FOR WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS
     For each. . .                                    For the following work practice requirements. . .          You have demonstrated initial compliance if. . .

     (1) Dry rotary dryer .........................   Process furnish with an inlet moisture content less        You meet the work practice requirement AND you
                                                        than or equal to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis)         submit a signed statement with the Notification of
                                                        AND operate with an inlet dryer temperature of             Compliance Status that the dryer meets the cri-
                                                        less than or equal to 600°F.                               teria of a ‘‘dry rotary dryer’’ AND you have a
                                                                                                                   record of the inlet moisture content and inlet dryer
                                                                                                                   temperature (as required in § 63.2263).

     (2) Hardwood veneer dryer .............          Process less than 30 volume percent softwood spe-          You meet the work practice requirement AND you
                                                        cies.                                                      submit a signed statement with the Notification of
                                                                                                                   Compliance Status that the dryer meets the cri-
                                                                                                                   teria of a ‘‘hardwood veneer dryer’’ AND you have
                                                                                                                   a record of the percentage of softwoods proc-
                                                                                                                   essed in the dryer (as required in § 63.2264).

     (3) Softwood veneer dryer ..............         Minimize fugitive emissions from the dryer doors           You meet the work practice requirement AND you
                                                        and the green end.                                         submit with the Notification of Compliance Status
                                                                                                                   a copy of your plan for minimizing fugitive emis-
                                                                                                                   sions from the veneer dryer heated zones (as re-
                                                                                                                   quired in § 63.2265).

     (4) Veneer redryers .........................    Process veneer with an inlet moisture content of           You meet the work practice requirement AND you
                                                        less than or equal to 25 percent (by weight, dry           submit a signed statement with the Notification of
                                                        basis).                                                    Compliance Status that the dryer operates only
                                                                                                                   as a redryer AND you have a record of the ve-
                                                                                                                   neer inlet moisture content of the veneer proc-
                                                                                                                   essed in the redryer (as required in § 63.2266).


              TABLE 7 TO SUBPART DDDD.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS AND OPERATING
                                                   REQUIREMENTS

     For . . .                                                   For the following compliance options and op-          You must demonstrate continuous compliance
                                                                 erating requirements . . .                            by . . .

     (1) Each process unit listed in Tables 1A and               Compliance options in Tables 1A and 1B of             Collecting and recording the operating param-
       1B of this subpart or used in calculation of                this subpart or the emissions averaging               eter monitoring system data listed in Table
       emissions     averaging      credits   under                compliance option in § 63.2240(c) and the             2 of this subpart for the process unit ac-
       § 63.2240(c).                                               operating requirements in Table 2 of this             cording to § 63.2268(a)–(e); AND reducing
                                                                   subpart based on monitoring of operating              the operating parameter monitoring system
                                                                   parameters.                                           data to the specified average in units of the
                                                                                                                         applicable requirement according to calcula-
                                                                                                                         tions in § 63.2268(a); AND maintaining the
                                                                                                                         average operating parameter at or above
                                                                                                                         the maximum, at or below the minimum, or
                                                                                                                         within the range (whichever applies) estab-
                                                                                                                         lished according to § 63.2262.

     (2) Each process unit listed in Tables 1A and               Compliance options in Tables 1A and 1B of             Collecting and recording the THC monitoring
       1B of this subpart or used in calculation of                this subpart or the emissions averaging               data listed in Table 2 of this subpart for the
       emissions     averaging      credits   under                compliance option in § 63.2240(c) and the             process unit according to § 63.2268(g);
       § 63.2240(c).                                               operating requirements in Table 2 of this             AND reducing the CEMS data to 3-hour
                                                                   subpart based on THC CEMS data.                       block averages according to calculations in
                                                                                                                         § 63.2268(g); AND maintaining the 3-hour
                                                                                                                         block average THC concentration in the ex-
                                                                                                                         haust gases less than or equal to the THC
                                                                                                                         concentration established according to
                                                                                                                         § 63.2262.




VerDate Dec<13>2002     16:26 Jan 08, 2003    Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00053   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1328                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

                      TABLE 8 TO SUBPART DDDD.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE WORK PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS
                                                                                                                                              You must demonstrate continuous compliance by
     For . . .                                                For the following work practice requirements . . .                              . . .

     (1) Dry rotary dryer .........................           Process furnish with an inlet moisture content less                             Maintaining the inlet furnish moisture content at less
                                                                than or equal to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis)                             than or equal to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis)
                                                                AND operate with an inlet dryer temperature of                                 AND maintaining the inlet dryer temperature at
                                                                less than or equal to 600 °F.                                                  less than or equal to 600 °F; AND keeping
                                                                                                                                               records of the inlet furnish moisture content and
                                                                                                                                               inlet dryer temperature.

     (2) Hardwood veneer dryer .............                  Process less than 30 volume percent softwood spe-                               Maintaining the volume percent softwood species
                                                                cies.                                                                          processed below 30 percent AND keeping
                                                                                                                                               records of the volume percent softwood species
                                                                                                                                               processed.

     (3) Softwood veneer dryer ..............                 Minimize fugitive emissions from the dryer doors                                Following (and documenting that you are following)
                                                                and the green end.                                                              your plan for minimizing fugitive emissions.

     (4) Veneer redryers .........................            Process veneer with an inlet moisture content of                                Maintaining the inlet moisture content of the veneer
                                                                less than or equal to 25 percent (by weight, dry                               processed at or below 25 percent AND keeping
                                                                basis).                                                                        records of the inlet moisture content of the veneer
                                                                                                                                               processed.


                                                          TABLE 9 TO SUBPART DDDD.—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS
     You must submit a(n) . . .                               The report must contain . . .                                                   You must submit the report . . .

     (1) Compliance report .....................              The information in § 63.2281(c) through (g) ..............                      Semiannually according to the requirements in
                                                                                                                                                § 63.2281(b).

     (2) Immediate startup, shutdown,                         (i) Actions taken for the event ...................................             By fax or telephone within 2 working days after
       and malfunction report if you had                                                                                                        starting actions inconsistent with the plan.
       a startup, shutdown, or malfunc-
       tion during the reporting period
       that is not consistent with your
       SSMP.
                                                              (ii) The information in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) .......................               By letter within 7 working days after the end of the
                                                                                                                                                event unless you have made alternative arrange-
                                                                                                                                                ments with the permitting authority.


                             TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART DDDD
                                                                                                                                                                                                              Applies to
                          Citation                                                Subject                                                        Brief description                                             subpart
                                                                                                                                                                                                               DDDD

     § 63.1 ...............................................   Applicability .....................................   Initial applicability determination; Applicability after                                 Yes.
                                                                                                                       standard established; Permit requirements; Exten-
                                                                                                                       sions, notifications.

     § 63.2 ...............................................   Definitions .......................................   Definitions for part 63 standards .................................                      Yes.

     § 63.3 ...............................................   Units and Abbreviations ..................            Units and abbreviations for part 63 standards ............                               Yes.

     § 63.4 ...............................................   Prohibited Activities ........................        Prohibited Activities; Compliance date; Circumven-                                       Yes.
                                                                                                                      tion, severability.

     § 63.5 ...............................................   Construction/Reconstruction ...........               Applicability; applications; approvals ...........................                       Yes.

     § 63.6(a) ..........................................     Applicability .....................................   GP apply unless compliance extension; GP apply to                                        Yes.
                                                                                                                     area sources that become major.

     § 63.6(b)(1)–(4) ................................        Compliance Dates for New and Re-                      Standards apply at effective date; 3 years after effec-                                  Yes.
                                                               constructed sources.                                   tive date; upon startup; 10 years after construction
                                                                                                                      or reconstruction commences for section 112(f).

     § 63.6(b)(5) ......................................      Notification ......................................   Must notify if commenced construction or reconstruc-                                     Yes.
                                                                                                                     tion after proposal.

     § 63.6(b)(6) ......................................      [Reserved] .......................................    ......................................................................................




VerDate Dec<13>2002        16:26 Jan 08, 2003         Jkt 200001     PO 00000      Frm 00054       Fmt 4701     Sfmt 4702      E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM                09JAP2
                                      Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                                                               1329

                  TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART DDDD—Continued
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Applies to
                          Citation                                               Subject                                                        Brief description                                             subpart
                                                                                                                                                                                                              DDDD

     § 63.6(b)(7) ......................................      Compliance Dates for New and Re-                     Area sources that become major must comply with                                          Yes.
                                                               constructed Area Sources that                         major source standards immediately upon becom-
                                                               Become Major.                                         ing major, regardless of whether required to com-
                                                                                                                     ply when they were an area source.

     § 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ................................        Compliance          Dates      for     Existing      Comply according to date in subpart, which must be                                       Yes.
                                                               Sources.                                              no later than 3 years after effective date; for sec-
                                                                                                                     tion 112(f) standards, comply within 90 days of ef-
                                                                                                                     fective date unless compliance extension.

     § 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ................................        [Reserved] .......................................   ......................................................................................

     § 63.6(c)(5) ......................................      Compliance Dates for Existing Area                   Area sources that become major must comply with                                          Yes.
                                                               Sources that Become Major.                            major source standards by date indicated in sub-
                                                                                                                     part or by equivalent time period (e.g., 3 years).

     § 63.6(d) ..........................................     [Reserved] .......................................   ......................................................................................

     § 63.6(e)(1)–(2) ................................        Operation & Maintenance ...............              Operate to minimize emissions at all times; correct                                      Yes.
                                                                                                                    malfunctions as soon as practicable; operation and
                                                                                                                    maintenance requirements independently enforce-
                                                                                                                    able; information Administrator will use to deter-
                                                                                                                    mine if operation and maintenance requirements
                                                                                                                    were met.

     § 63.6(e)(3) ......................................      Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction                   Requirement for SSM and SSMP; Content of SSMP                                            Yes.
                                                                Plan (SSMP).

     § 63.6(f)(1) .......................................     Compliance Except During SSM ....                    You must comply with emission standards at all                                           Yes.
                                                                                                                     times except during SSM.

     § 63.6(f)(2)–(3) .................................       Methods for Determining Compli-                      Compliance based on performance test, operation                                          Yes.
                                                               ance.                                                 and maintenance plans, records, inspection.

     § 63.6(g)(1)–(3) ................................        Alternative Standard .......................         Procedures for getting an alternative standard ...........                               Yes.

     § 63.6(h)(1)–(9) ................................        Opacity/Visible          Emission          (VE)      Requirements for opacity and visible emission stand-                                     NA.
                                                               Standards.                                            ards.

     § 63.6(i)(1)–(14) ...............................        Compliance Extension ....................            Procedures and criteria for Administrator to grant                                       Yes.
                                                                                                                     compliance extension.

     § 63.6(j) ............................................   Presidential Compliance Exemption                    President may exempt source category from require-                                       Yes.
                                                                                                                     ment to comply with rule.

     § 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ................................        Performance Test Dates .................             Dates for Conducting Initial Performance Testing and                                     Yes.
                                                                                                                    Other Compliance Demonstrations; Must conduct
                                                                                                                    180 days after first subject to rule.

     § 63.7(a)(3) ......................................      Section 114 Authority .....................          Administrator may require a performance test under                                       Yes.
                                                                                                                     CAA section 114 at any time.

     § 63.7(b)(1) ......................................      Notification of Performance Test ....                Must notify Administrator 60 days before the test ......                                 Yes.

     § 63.7(b)(2) ......................................      Notification of Rescheduling ...........             If have to reschedule performance test, must notify                                      Yes.
                                                                                                                      Administrator 5 days before scheduled date of re-
                                                                                                                      scheduled date.

     § 63.7(c) ...........................................    Quality Assurance/Test Plan ..........               Requirement to submit site-specific test plan 60 days                                    Yes.
                                                                                                                    before the test or on date Administrator agrees
                                                                                                                    with; test plan approval procedures; performance
                                                                                                                    audit requirements; internal and external QA proce-
                                                                                                                    dures for testing.

     § 63.7(d) ..........................................     Testing Facilities .............................     Requirements for testing facilities ...............................                      Yes.

     § 63.7(e)(1) ......................................      Conditions for Conducting Perform-                   Performance tests must be conducted under rep-                                           Yes.
                                                               ance Tests.                                           resentative conditions; cannot conduct perform-
                                                                                                                     ance tests during SSM; not a violation to exceed
                                                                                                                     standard during SSM.




VerDate Dec<13>2002        16:26 Jan 08, 2003         Jkt 200001     PO 00000      Frm 00055       Fmt 4701    Sfmt 4702      E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM                09JAP2
     1330                            Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

                 TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART DDDD—Continued
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Applies to
                         Citation                                               Subject                                                        Brief description                                             subpart
                                                                                                                                                                                                             DDDD

     § 63.7(e)(2) ......................................     Conditions for Conducting Perform-                   Must conduct according to rule and EPA test meth-                                        Yes.
                                                              ance Tests.                                          ods unless Administrator approves alternative.

     § 63.7(e)(3) ......................................     Test Run Duration ..........................         Must have three test runs of at least one hour each;                                     Yes.
                                                                                                                   compliance is based on arithmetic mean of three
                                                                                                                   runs; specifies conditions when data from an addi-
                                                                                                                   tional test run can be used.

     § 63.7(f) ...........................................   Alternative Test Method ..................           Procedures by which Administrator can grant ap-                                          Yes.
                                                                                                                    proval to use an alternative test method.

     § 63.7(g) ..........................................    Performance Test Data Analysis ....                  Must include raw data in performance test report;                                        Yes.
                                                                                                                   must submit performance test data 60 days after
                                                                                                                   end of test with the notification of compliance sta-
                                                                                                                   tus; keep data for 5 years.

     § 63.7(h) ..........................................    Waiver of Tests ...............................      Procedures for Administrator to waive performance                                        Yes.
                                                                                                                    test.

     § 63.8(a)(1) ......................................     Applicability of Monitoring Require-                 Subject to all monitoring requirements in standard ....                                  Yes.
                                                               ments.

     § 63.8(a)(2) ......................................     Performance Specifications ............              Performance Specifications in Appendix B of Part 60                                      Yes.
                                                                                                                    apply.

     § 63.8(a)(3) ......................................     [Reserved] .......................................   ......................................................................................

     § 63.8(a)(4) ......................................     Monitoring with Flares ....................          Requirements for flares in § 63.11 apply ....................                            NA

     § 63.8(b)(1) ......................................     Monitoring .......................................   Must conduct monitoring according to standard un-                                        Yes.
                                                                                                                   less Administrator approves alternative.

     § 63.8(b)(2)–(3) ................................       Multiple Effluents and Multiple Mon-                 Specific requirements for installing monitoring sys-                                     Yes.
                                                              itoring Systems.                                      tems; must install on each effluent before it is com-
                                                                                                                    bined and before it is released to the atmosphere
                                                                                                                    unless Administrator approves otherwise; if more
                                                                                                                    than one monitoring system on an emission point,
                                                                                                                    must report all monitoring system results, unless
                                                                                                                    one monitoring system is a backup.

     § 63.8(c)(1) ......................................     Monitoring System Operation and                      Maintain monitoring system in a manner consistent                                        Yes.
                                                              Maintenance.                                         with good air pollution control practices.

     § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ...................................     Routine and Predictable SSM ........                 Follow the SSM plan for routine repairs; keep parts                                      Yes.
                                                                                                                    for routine repairs readily available; reporting re-
                                                                                                                    quirements for SSM when action is described in
                                                                                                                    SSM plan.

     § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ..................................     SSM not in SSMP ...........................          Reporting requirements for SSM Yes when action is                                        Yes.
                                                                                                                   not described in SSM plan.

     § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .................................     Compliance with Operation and                        How Administrator determines if source complying                                         Yes.
                                                              Maintenance Requirements.                             with operation and maintenance requirements; re-
                                                                                                                    view of source O&M procedures, records; manu-
                                                                                                                    facturer’s instructions, recommendations; inspec-
                                                                                                                    tion.

     § 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ................................       Monitoring System Installation ........              Must install to get representative emission of param-                                    Yes.
                                                                                                                   eter measurements; must verify operational status
                                                                                                                   before or at performance test.

     § 63.8(c)(4) ......................................     Continuous Monitoring                  System        CMS must be operating except during breakdown,                                           Yes.
                                                              (CMS) Requirements.                                  out-of-control, repair, maintenance, and high-level
                                                                                                                   calibration drifts; COMS must have a minimum of
                                                                                                                   one cycle of sampling and analysis for each suc-
                                                                                                                   cessive 10-second period and one cycle of data re-
                                                                                                                   cording for each successive 6-minute period;
                                                                                                                   CEMS must have a minimum of one cycle of oper-
                                                                                                                   ation for each successive 15-minute period.




VerDate Dec<13>2002        16:26 Jan 08, 2003        Jkt 200001     PO 00000      Frm 00056      Fmt 4701     Sfmt 4702      E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM                09JAP2
                                      Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                                          1331

                  TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART DDDD—Continued
                                                                                                                                                                                        Applies to
                          Citation                                               Subject                                                 Brief description                               subpart
                                                                                                                                                                                         DDDD

     § 63.8(c)(5) ......................................      COMS Minimum Procedures ..........                  COMS minimum procedures .......................................      NA.

     § 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ................................        CMS Requirements ........................           Zero and high level calibration check requirements;                  Yes.
                                                                                                                    out-of- control periods.

     § 63.8(d) ..........................................     CMS Quality Control .......................         Requirements for CMS quality control, including cali-                Yes.
                                                                                                                   bration, etc.; must keep quality control plan on
                                                                                                                   record for 5 years. Keep old versions for 5 years
                                                                                                                   after revisions.

     § 63.8(e) ..........................................     CMS Performance Evaluation ........                 Notification, performance evaluation test plan, re-                  Yes.
                                                                                                                   ports..

     § 63.8(f)(1)–(5) .................................       Alternative Monitoring Method ........              Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative                  Yes.
                                                                                                                    monitoring.

     § 63.8(f)(6) .......................................     Alternative Relative Accuracy Test                  Procedures for Administrator to approve alternative                  Yes.
                                                                                                                    relative accuracy tests for CEMS.

     § 63.8(g) ..........................................     Data Reduction ...............................      COMS 6-minute averages calculated over at least 36                   Yes.
                                                                                                                   evenly spaced data points; CEMS 1 hour averages
                                                                                                                   computed over at least 4 equally spaced data
                                                                                                                   points; data that can’t be used in average.

     § 63.9(a) ..........................................     Notification Requirements ...............           Applicability and State Delegation ...............................   Yes.

     § 63.9(b)(1)–(5) ................................        Initial Notifications ...........................   Submit notification 120 days after effective date; noti-             Yes.
                                                                                                                    fication of intent to construct/reconstruct; notifica-
                                                                                                                    tion of commencement of construct/reconstruct; no-
                                                                                                                    tification of startup; contents of each.

     § 63.9(c) ...........................................    Request for Compliance Extension                    Can request if cannot comply by date or if installed                 Yes
                                                                                                                   BACT/LAER.

     § 63.9(d) ..........................................     Notification of Special Compliance                  For sources that commence construction between                       Yes
                                                               Requirements for New Source.                         proposal and promulgation and want to comply 3
                                                                                                                    years after effective date.

     § 63.9(e) ..........................................     Notification of Performance Test ....               Notify Administrator 60 days prior ...............................   Yes.

     § 63.9(f) ...........................................    Notification of VE/Opacity Test .......             Notify Administrator 30 days prior ...............................   No.

     § 63.9(g) ..........................................     Additional Notifications When Using                 Notification of performance evaluation; notification                 Yes.
                                                                CMS.                                                using COMS data; notification that exceeded cri-
                                                                                                                    terion for relative accuracy.

     § 63.9(h)(1)–(6) ................................        Notification of Compliance Status ..                Contents; due 60 days after end of performance test                  Yes.
                                                                                                                   or other compliance demonstration, except for
                                                                                                                   opacity/VE, which are due 30 days after; when to
                                                                                                                   submit to Federal vs. State authority.

     § 63.9(i) ............................................   Adjustment of Submittal Deadlines                   Procedures for Administrator to approve change in                    Yes.
                                                                                                                    when notifications must be submitted.

     § 63.9(j) ............................................   Change in Previous Information .....                Must submit within 15 days after the change .............            Yes.

     § 63.10(a) ........................................      Recordkeeping/Reporting ...............             Applies to all, unless compliance extension; when to                 Yes.
                                                                                                                    submit to Federal vs. State authority; procedures
                                                                                                                    for owners of more than 1 source.

     § 63.10(b)(1) ....................................       Recordkeeping/Reporting ...............             General Requirements; keep all records readily avail-                Yes.
                                                                                                                   able; keep for 5 years.

     § 63.10(b)(2)(i)–(iv) ..........................         Records related to Startup, Shut-                   Occurrence of each of operation (process equip-                      Yes.
                                                               down, and Malfunction.                              ment); occurrence of each malfunction of air pollu-
                                                                                                                   tion equipment; maintenance on air pollution con-
                                                                                                                   trol equipment; actions during startup, shutdown,
                                                                                                                   and malfunction.

     § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x)–(xi) ...........               CMS Records .................................       Malfunctions, inoperative, out-of-control .....................      Yes.




VerDate Dec<13>2002        16:26 Jan 08, 2003         Jkt 200001     PO 00000      Frm 00057     Fmt 4701     Sfmt 4702    E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM       09JAP2
     1332                            Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

                 TABLE 10 TO SUBPART DDDD.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART DDDD—Continued
                                                                                                                                                                                                Applies to
                         Citation                                                Subject                                                     Brief description                                   subpart
                                                                                                                                                                                                 DDDD

     § 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(ix) .......................         Records ...........................................     Measurements to demonstrate compliance with com-                          Yes.
                                                                                                                      pliance options and operating requirements; per-
                                                                                                                      formance test, performance evaluation, and visible
                                                                                                                      emission observation results; measurements to de-
                                                                                                                      termine conditions of performance tests and per-
                                                                                                                      formance evaluations.

     § 63.10(b)(2)(xii) ..............................       Records ...........................................     Records when under waiver ........................................        Yes.

     § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) .............................       Records ...........................................     Records when using alternative to relative accuracy                       Yes.
                                                                                                                      test.

     § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) .............................        Records ...........................................     All documentation supporting initial notification and                     Yes.
                                                                                                                       notification of compliance status.

     § 63.10(b) (3) ...................................      Records ...........................................     Applicability Determinations ........................................     Yes.

     § 63.10(c)(1)–(6),(9)–(15) ................             Records ...........................................     Additional Records for CMS ........................................       Yes.

     § 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ..............................        Records ...........................................     Records of excess emissions and parameter moni-                           No.
                                                                                                                      toring exceedances for CMS.

     § 63.10(d)(1) ....................................      General Reporting Requirements ...                      Requirement to report .................................................   Yes.

     § 63.10(d)(2) ....................................      Report of Performance Test Re-                          When to submit to Federal or State authority .............                Yes.
                                                              sults.

     § 63.10(d)(3) ....................................      Reporting Opacity or VE Observa-                        What to report and when .............................................     NA.
                                                              tions.

     § 63.10(d)(4) ....................................      Progress Reports ............................           Must submit progress reports on schedule if under                         Yes.
                                                                                                                      compliance.

     § 63.10(d)(5) ....................................      Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction                      Contents and submission ............................................      Yes.
                                                               Reports.

     § 63.10(e)(1)–(2) ..............................        Additional CMS Reports .................                Must report results for each CEM Reports on a unit;                       Yes.
                                                                                                                      written copy of performance evaluation; 3 copies of
                                                                                                                      COMS performance evaluation.

     § 63.10(e)(3) ....................................      Reports ...........................................     Excess Emission Reports ............................................      No.

     § 63.10(e)(4) ....................................      Reporting COMS data ....................                Must submit COMS data with performance test data                          NA.

     § 63.10(f) .........................................    Waiver for Recordkeeping/Report-                        Procedures for Administrator to waive ........................            Yes.
                                                              ing.

     § 63.11 .............................................   Flares ..............................................   Requirements for flares ...............................................   NA.

     § 63.12 .............................................   Delegation .......................................      State authority to enforce standards ...........................          Yes.

     § 63.13 .............................................   Addresses .......................................       Addresses where reports, notifications, and requests                      Yes.
                                                                                                                       are send.

     § 63.14 .............................................   Incorporation by Reference ............                 Test methods incorporated by reference ....................               Yes.

     § 63.15 .............................................   Availability of Information ................            Public and confidential information .............................         Yes.



     Appendix A to Subpart DDDD—                                             industry and is used to determine the capture                        Administrator). This gas is not indigenous to
     Alternative Procedure To Determine                                      efficiency of a partial hot press enclosure in                       the ambient atmosphere and is nonreactive.
     Capture Efficiency From A Hot Press                                     that industry. This procedure is applicable                             This procedure uses infrared spectrometry
     Enclosure in the Plywood and                                            for the determination of capture efficiency for                      (IR) as the analytical technique. When the
     Composite Wood Products Industry                                        press enclosures that are not considered to be                       infrared spectrometer used is a Fourier-
     Using Sulfur Hexafluoride Tracer Gas                                    permanent total enclosures (PTEs) as defined                         Transform Infrared spectrometer (FTIR), an
                                                                             in EPA Method 204 and is proposed as an                              alternate instrument calibration procedure
     1.0 Scope and Application                                               alternative to the construction of temporary                         may be used; the alternate calibration
       This procedure has been developed                                     total enclosures (TTEs). Sulfur hexafluoride                         procedure is the calibration transfer standard
     specifically for the proposed rule for the                              (SF6) is used as a tracer gas (other tracer gases                    (CTS) procedure of EPA Method 320. Other
     plywood and composite wood products                                     may be used if approved by the                                       analytical techniques which are capable of



VerDate Dec<13>2002        16:26 Jan 08, 2003        Jkt 200001     PO 00000       Frm 00058       Fmt 4701      Sfmt 4700     E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM         09JAP2
                             Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                 1333

     equivalent Method Performance (Section                     3.5 Lower Confidence Limit (LCL)                    hexafluoride gas. Self contained breathing
     13.0) also may be used. Specifically, gas               Approach. An alternative statistical                   apparatus may be required by rescue
     chromatography with electron capture                    procedure that can be used to qualify data in          workers. Sulfur hexafluoride is not listed as
     detection (GC/ECD) is an applicable                     the determination of capture efficiency for            a carcinogen or a potential carcinogen.
     technique for analysis of SF6.                          compliance purposes. If the results of the
                                                                                                                    6.0 Equipment and Supplies
                                                             LCL approach produce a CE that is too low
     2.0 Summary of Method                                                                                             This method requires equipment and
                                                             for demonstrating compliance, then
        A constant mass flow rate of SF6 tracer gas          additional test runs must be conducted until           supplies for: (a) The injection of tracer gas
     is released through manifolds at multiple               the LCL or DQO is met. As with the DQO,                into the enclosure, (b) the measurement of
     locations within the enclosure to mimic the             data from all valid test runs must be used in          the tracer gas concentration in the exhaust
     release of HAP during the press process. This           the calculation.                                       gas entering the control device, and (c) the
     test method requires a minimum of three SF6                3.6 Minimum Measurement Level (MML).                measurement of the volumetric flow rate of
     injection points (two at the press unloader             The minimum tracer gas concentration                   the exhaust gas entering the control device.
     and one at the press) and provides details              expected to be measured during the test                In addition, the requisite equipment needed
     about considerations for locating the                   series. This value is selected by the tester           for EPA Methods 1—4 will be required.
     injection points. An infrared spectrometer (or          based on the capabilities of the IR                    Equipment and supplies for optional ambient
     GC/ECD) is used to measure the                          spectrometer (or GC/ECD) and the other                 air sampling are discussed in Section 8.6.
     concentration of SF6 at the inlet duct to the                                                                     6.1 Tracer Gas Injection.
                                                             known or measured parameters of the hot
     control device (outlet duct from enclosure).                                                                      6.1.1 Manifolds. This method requires the
                                                             press enclosure to be tested. The selected
     Simultaneously, EPA Method 2 is used to                                                                        use of tracer gas supply cylinder(s) along
                                                             MML must be above the low-level calibration
     measure the flow rate at the inlet duct to the                                                                 with the appropriate flow control elements.
                                                             standard and preferably below the mid-level
     control device. The concentration and flow                                                                     Figure 1 shows a schematic drawing of the
                                                             calibration standard.                                  injection system showing potential locations
     rate measurements are used to calculate the
                                                                3.7 Method 204. The U.S. EPA Method                 for the tracer gas manifolds. Figure 2 shows
     mass emission rate of SF6 at the control
                                                             204, ‘‘Criteria For and Verification of a              a schematic drawing of the recommended
     device inlet. Through calculation of the mass
                                                             Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure’’               configuration of the injection manifold.
     of SF6 released through the manifolds and
     the mass of SF6 measured at the inlet to the            (40 CFR part 51, Appendix M). If the                   Three tracer gas discharge manifolds are
     control device, the capture efficiency of the           permanent total enclosure (PTE) criteria in            required at a minimum.
     enclosure is calculated.                                Method 204 are satisfied, the PTE around a                6.1.2 Flow Control Meter. Flow control
        In addition, optional samples of the                 hot press is assumed to be 100 percent                 and measurement meter for measuring the
     ambient air may be taken at locations around            capture efficient.                                     quantity of tracer gas injected. A mass flow,
     the perimeter of the enclosure to quantify the             3.8 Method 205. The U.S. EPA Method                 volumetric flow, or critical orifice control
     ambient concentration of SF6 and to identify            205, ‘‘Verification of Gas dilution Systems for        meter can be used for this method. The meter
     those areas of the enclosure that may be                Field Instrument Calibrations’’ (40 CFR part           must be accurate to within ± 5 percent at the
     performing less efficiently; these samples              51, Appendix M).                                       flow rate used. This means that the flow
     would be taken using disposable syringes                   3.9 Method 320. The U.S. EPA Method                 meter must be calibrated against a primary
     and would be analyzed using a GC/ECD.                   320, ‘‘Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic              standard for flow measurement at the
        Finally, in addition to the requirements             and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive                  appropriate flow rate.
     specified in this procedure, the data quality           Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)                         6.2 Measurement of Tracer Gas
     objectives (DQO) or lower confidence limit              Spectroscopy’’ (40 CFR part 63, Appendix A).           Concentration.
     (LCL) criteria specified in Appendix A to 40               3.10 Overall capture and control                       6.2.1 Sampling Probes. Use Pyrex or
     CFR part 63, subpart KK, Data Quality                   efficiency (CCE). The collection and control/          stainless steel sampling probes of sufficient
     Objective and Lower Confidence Limit                    destruction efficiency of both the PPE and CD          length to reach the traverse points calculated
     Approaches for Alternative Capture                      combined. The CCE is calculated as the                 according to EPA Method 1.
     Efficiency Protocols and Test Methods, must             product of the CE and DE.                                 6.2.2 Sampling Line. Use a heated Teflon
     also be satisfied. A minimum of three test                 3.11 Partial press enclosure (PPE). The             sampling line to transport the sample to the
     runs are required for this procedure;                   physical barrier that ‘‘partially’’ encloses the       analytical instrument.
     however, additional test runs may be                    press equipment, captures a significant                   6.2.3 Sampling Pump. Use a sampling
     required based on the results of the DQO or             amount of the associated emissions, and                pump capable of extracting sufficient sample
     LCL analysis.                                           transports those emissions to the CD.                  from the duct and transporting to the
                                                                3.12 Test series. A minimum of three test           analytical instrument.
     3.0 Definitions                                         runs or, when more than three runs are                    6.2.4 Sample Conditioning System. Use a
       3.1 Capture efficiency (CE). The weight               conducted, all of the test runs conducted.             particulate filter sufficient to protect the
     per unit time of SF6entering the control                                                                       sampling pump and analytical instrument. At
                                                             4.0 Interferences
     device divided by the weight per unit time                                                                     the discretion of the tester and depending on
     of SF6 released through manifolds at multiple             There are no known interferences.                    the equipment used and the moisture content
     locations within the enclosure.                                                                                of the exhaust gas, it may be necessary to
                                                             5.0 Safety
       3.2 Control device (CD). The equipment                                                                       further condition the sample by removing
     used to reduce, by destruction or removal,                 Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless,       moisture using a condenser.
     press exhaust air pollutants prior to                   nonflammable liquefied gas. It is stable and              6.2.5 Analytical Instrument. Use one of
     discharge to the ambient air.                           nonreactive and, because it is noncorrosive,           the following analytical instruments.
       3.3 Control/destruction efficiency (DE).              most structural materials are compatible with             6.2.1.1 Spectrometer. Use an infrared
     The VOC or HAP removal efficiency of the                it. The Occupational Safety and Health                 spectrometer designed to measuring SF6
     control device.                                         Administration PEL–TWA and TLV–TWA                     tracer gas and capable of meeting or
       3.4 Data Quality Objective (DQO)                      concentrations are 1,000 parts per million.            exceeding the specifications of this
     Approach. A statistical procedure to                    Sulfur hexafluoride is an asphyxiant.                  procedure. An FTIR meeting the
     determine the precision of the data from a              Exposure to an oxygen deficient atmosphere             specifications of Method 320 may be used.
     test series and to qualify the data in the              (less than 19.5 percent oxygen) may cause                 6.2.1.2 GC/ECD. Use a GC/ECD designed
     determination of capture efficiency for                 dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting,               to measure SF6 tracer gas and capable of
     compliance purposes. If the results of the              excess salivation, diminished mental                   meeting or exceeding the specifications of
     DQO analysis of the initial three test runs do          alertness, loss of consciousness and death.            this procedure.
     not satisfy the DQO criterion, the LCL                  Exposure to atmospheres containing less than              6.2.6 Recorder. At a minimum, use a
     approach can be used or additional test runs            12 percent oxygen will bring about                     recorder with linear strip chart. An
     must be conducted. If additional test runs are          unconsciousness without warning and so                 automated data acquisition system (DAS) is
     conducted, then the DQO or LCL analysis is              quickly that the individuals cannot help               recommended.
     conducted using the data from both the                  themselves. Contact with liquid or cold vapor             6.3 Exhaust Gas Flow Rate Measurement.
     initial test runs and all additional test runs.         may cause frostbite. Avoid breathing sulfur            Use equipment specified for EPA Methods 2,



VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00059   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
     1334                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     3, and 4 for measuring flow rate of exhaust                8.1.1 Determination of Minimum Tracer                  8.2 Tracer Gas Release. Release the tracer
     gas at the inlet to the control device.                 Gas Flow Rate.                                         gas at a calculated flow rate (see section 12.1
                                                                8.1.1.1 Determine (via design calculations          for calculation) through a minimum of three
     7.0 Reagents and Standards
                                                             or measurements) the approximate flow rate             injection manifolds located as described
        7.1 Tracer Gas. Use SF6 as the tracer gas.           of the exhaust gas through the enclosure               above in 8.1.3. The tracer gas delivery lines
     The manufacturer of the SF6 tracer gas                  (acfm).                                                must be routed into the enclosure and
     should provide a recommended shelf life for                8.1.1.2 Calculate the minimum tracer gas            attached to the manifolds without violating
     the tracer gas cylinder over which the                  injection rate necessary to assure a detectable        the integrity of the enclosure.
     concentration does not change more than ±               SF6 concentration at the exhaust gas                      8.3 Pretest Measurements.
     2 percent from the certified value. A gas               measurement point (see section 12.1 for                   8.3.1 Location of Sampling Point(s). If
     mixture of SF6 diluted with nitrogen should             calculation).                                          stratification is not suspected at the
     be used; based on experience and                           8.1.1.3 Select a flow meter for the                 measurement location, select a single sample
     calculations, pure SF6 gas is not necessary to          injection system with an operating range               point located at the centroid of the CD inlet
     conduct tracer gas testing. Select a                    appropriate for the injection rate selected.           duct or at a point no closer to the CD inlet
     concentration and flow rate that is                        8.1.2 Determination of the Approximate              duct walls than 1 meter. If stratification is
     appropriate for the analytical instrument’s             Time to Reach Equilibrium.                             suspected, establish a ‘‘measurement line’’
     detection limit, the minimum measurement                   8.1.2.1 Determine the volume of the                 that passes through the centroidal area and
     level (MML), and the exhaust gas flow rate              enclosure.                                             in the direction of any expected stratification.
     from the enclosure (see section 8.1.1). You                8.1.2.2 Calculate the air changes per               Locate three traverse points at 16.7, 50.0 and
     may use a tracer gas other than SF6 with the            minute of the enclosure by dividing the                83.3 percent of the measurement line and
     prior approval of the Administrator. If you             approximate exhaust flow rate (8.1.1.1 above)          sample from each of these three points
     use an approved tracer gas other than SF6,              by the enclosed volume (8.1.2.1 above).                during each run, or follow the procedure in
     all references to SF6 in this protocol instead             8.1.2.3 Calculate the time at which the             section 8.3.2 to verify whether stratification
     refer to the approved tracer gas.                       tracer concentration in the enclosure will             does or does not exist.
        7.2 Calibration Gases. The SF6 calibration           achieve approximate equilibrium. Divide 3                 8.3.2 Stratification Verification. The
     gases required will be dependent on the                 by the air changes per minute (8.1.2.2 above)          presence or absence of stratification can be
     selected MML and the appropriate span                   to establish this time. This is the approximate        verified by using the following procedure.
     selected for the test. Commercial cylinder
                                                             length of time for the system to come to               While the facility is operating normally,
     gases certified by the manufacturer to be
                                                             equilibrium. Concentration equilibrium                 initiate tracer gas release into the PPE. For
     accurate to within 1 percent of the certified
                                                             occurs when the tracer concentration in the            rectangular ducts, locate at least nine sample
     label value are preferable, although cylinder
                                                             enclosure stops changing as a function of              points in the cross section such that the
     gases certified by the manufacturer to 2
     percent accuracy are allowed. Additionally,             time for a constant tracer release rate.               sample points are the centroids of similarly-
     the manufacturer of the SF6 calibration gases           Because the press is continuously cycling,             shaped, equal area divisions of the cross
     should provide a recommended shelf life for             equilibrium may be exhibited by a repeating,           section. Measure the tracer gas concentration
     each calibration gas cylinder over which the            but stable, cyclic pattern rather than a single        at each point. Calculate the mean value for
     concentration does not change more than ±               constant concentration value. Assure                   all sample points. For circular ducts, conduct
     2 percent from the certified value. Another             sufficient tracer gas is available to allow the        a 12-point traverse (i.e., six points on each of
     option allowed by this method is for the                system to come to equilibrium, and to sample           the two perpendicular diameters) locating the
     tester to obtain high concentration certified           for a minimum of 20 minutes and repeat the             sample points as described in 40 CFR part 60,
     cylinder gases and then use a dilution system           procedure for a minimum of 3 test runs.                Appendix A, Method 1. Perform the
     meeting the requirements of EPA Method                  Additional test runs may be required based             measurements and calculations as described
     205, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix M, to make                on the results of the DQO and LCL analyses             above. Determine if the mean pollutant
     multi-level calibration gas standards. Low-             described in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK,               concentration is more than 10 percent
     level, mid-level, and high-level calibration            Appendix A.                                            different from any single point. If so, the
     gases will be required. The MML must be                    8.1.3 Location of Injection Points. This            cross section is considered to be stratified,
     above the low-level standard, the high-level            method requires a minimum of three tracer              and the tester may not use a single sample
     standard must be no more than four times the            gas injection points. The injection points             point location, but must use the three
     low-level standard, and the mid-level                   should be located within leak prone, VOC/              traverse points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent
     standard must be approximately halfway                  HAP-producing areas around the press, or               of the entire measurement line. Other
     between the high- and low-level standards.              horizontally within 12 inches of the defined           traverse points may be selected, provided
     See section 12.1 for an example calculation             equipment. One potential configuration of              that they can be shown to the satisfaction of
     of this procedure.                                      the injection points is depicted in Figure 1.          the Administrator to provide a representative
        Note: If using an FTIR as the analytical             The effect of wind, exfiltration through the           sample over the stack or duct cross section.
     instrument, the tester has the option of                building envelope, and air flowing through                8.4 CD Inlet Gas Flow Rate
     following the CTS procedures of Method 320;             open building doors should be considered               Measurements. The procedures of EPA
     the calibration standards (and procedures)              when locating tracer gas injection points              Methods 1–4 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A)
     specified in Method 320 may be used in lieu             within the PPE. The injection points should            are used to determine the CD inlet gas flow
     of the calibration standards and procedures             also be located at a vertical elevation equal          rate. Molecular weight (Method (3) and
     in this protocol.                                       to the VOC/HAP generating zones. The                   moisture (Method (4) determinations are only
        7.2.1 Zero Gas. High purity nitrogen.                injection points should not be located                 required once for each test series. However,
        7.2.2 Low-Level Calibration Gas. An SF6              beneath obstructions that would prevent a              if the test series is not completed within 24
     calibration gas in nitrogen with a                      natural dispersion of the gas. Document the            hours, then the molecular weight and
     concentration equivalent to 20 to 30 percent            selected injection points in a drawing(s).             moisture measurements should be repeated
     of the applicable span value.                              8.1.4 Location of Flow Measurement and              daily. As a minimum, velocity measurements
        7.2.3 Mid-Level Calibration Gas. An SF6              Tracer Sampling. Accurate CD inlet gas flow            are conducted according to the procedures of
     calibration gas in nitrogen with a                      rate measurements are critical to the success          Methods 1 and 2 before and after each test
     concentration equivalent to 45 to 55 percent            of this procedure. Select a measurement                run, as close to the start and end of the run
     of the applicable span value.                           location meeting the criteria of EPA Method            as practicable. A velocity measurement
        7.2.4 High-Level Calibration Gas. An SF6             1 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A), Sampling               between two runs satisfies both the criterion
     calibration gas in nitrogen with a                      and Velocity Traverses for Stationary                  of ‘‘after’’ the run just completed and
     concentration equivalent to 80 to 90 percent            Sources. Also, when selecting the                      ‘‘before’’ the run to be initiated. Accurate
     of the applicable span value.                           measurement location, consider whether                 exhaust gas flow rate measurements are
                                                             stratification of the tracer gas is likely at the      critical to the success of this procedure. If
     8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation,                    location (e.g., do not select a location               significant temporal variations of flow rate
     Storage, and Transport                                  immediately after a point of air in-leakage to         are anticipated during the test run under
       8.1 Test Design                                       the duct).                                             normal process operating conditions, take



VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00060   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                                      Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                                  1335

     appropriate steps to accurately measure the                                 measurement system response equivalent to                       8.6 Ambient Air Sampling (Optional).
     flow rate during the test. Examples of steps                                95 percent of the step change. Repeat the test               Sampling the ambient air surrounding the
     that might be taken include: (1) Conducting                                 three times and average the results.                         enclosure is optional. However, taking these
     additional velocity traverses during the test                                  8.5.3 SF6 Measurement. Sampling of the                    samples during the capture efficiency testing
     run; or (2) continuously monitoring a single                                enclosure exhaust gas at the inlet to the CD                 will identify those areas of the enclosure that
     point of average velocity during the run and                                should begin at the onset of tracer gas release.             may be performing less efficiently.
     using these data, in conjunction with the pre-                              If necessary, adjust the tracer gas injection                   8.6.1 Location of Ambient Samples
     and post-test traverses, to calculate an                                    rate such that the measured tracer gas                       Outside the Enclosure (Optional). In selecting
     average velocity for the test run.                                          concentration at the CD inlet is within the
                                                                                                                                              the sampling locations for collecting samples
        8.5 Tracer Gas Measurement Procedure.                                    spectrometer’s calibration range (i.e.,
                                                                                                                                              of the ambient air surrounding the enclosure,
        8.5.1 Calibration Error Test. Immediately                                between the MML and the span value). Once
                                                                                 the tracer gas concentration reaches                         consider potential leak points, the direction
     prior to the emission test (within 2 hours of                                                                                            of the release, and laminar flow
     the start of the test), introduce zero gas and                              equilibrium, the SF6 concentration should be
                                                                                 measured using the infrared spectrometer                     characteristics in the area surrounding the
     high-level calibration gas at the calibration
                                                                                 continuously for at least 20 minutes per run.                enclosure. Samples should be collected from
     valve assembly. Zero and calibrate the
                                                                                 Continuously record (i.e., record at least once              all sides of the enclosure, downstream in the
     analyzer according to the manufacturer’s
                                                                                 per minute) the concentration. Conduct at                    prevailing room air flow, and in the operating
     procedures using, respectively, nitrogen and
     the calibration gases. Calculate the predicted                              least three test runs. On the recording chart,               personnel occupancy areas.
     response for the low-level and mid-level                                    in the data acquisition system, or in a log                     8.6.2 Collection of Ambient Samples
     gases based on a linear response line between                               book, make a note of periods of process                      (Optional). During the tracer gas release,
     the zero and high-level response. Then                                      interruption or cyclic operation such as the                 collect ambient samples from the area
     introduce the low-level and mid-level                                       cycles of the hot press operation. Table 1                   surrounding the enclosure perimeter at
                                                                                 summarizes the physical measurements                         predetermined location using disposable
     calibration gases successively to the
                                                                                 required for the press enclosure testing.                    syringes or some other type of containers that
     measurement system. Record the analyzer
     responses for the low-level and mid-level                                      Note: If a GC/ECD is used as the analytical               are non-absorbent, inert and that have low
     calibration gases and determine the                                         instrument, a continuous record (at least                    permeability (i.e., polyvinyl fluoride film or
     differences between the measurement system                                  once per minute) likely will not be possible;                polyester film sample bags or polyethylene,
     responses and the predicted responses using                                 make a minimum of five injections during                     polypropylene, nylon or glass bottles). The
     the equation in section 12.3. These                                         each test run. Also, the minimum test run                    use of disposable syringes allows samples to
     differences must be less than 5 percent of the                              duration criterion of 20 minutes applies.                    be injected directly into a gas chromatograph.
     respective calibration gas value. If not, the                                  8.5.4 Drift Determination. Immediately                    Concentration measurements taken around
     measurement system must be replaced or                                      following the completion of the test run,                    the perimeter of the enclosure provide
     repaired prior to testing. No adjustments to                                reintroduce the zero and mid-level                           evidence of capture performance and will
     the measurement system shall be conducted                                   calibration gases, one at a time, to the                     assist in the identification of those areas of
     after the calibration and before the drift                                  measurement system at the calibration valve                  the enclosure that are performing less
     determination (section 8.5.4). If adjustments                               assembly. (Make no adjustments to the                        efficiently.
     are necessary before the completion of the                                  measurement system until both the zero and
                                                                                                                                                 8.6.3 Analysis and Storage of Ambient
     test series, perform the drift checks prior to                              calibration drift checks are made.) Record the
                                                                                                                                              Samples (Optional). Analyze the ambient
     the required adjustments and repeat the                                     analyzer responses for the zero and mid-level
                                                                                 calibration gases and determine the                          samples using an analytical instrument
     calibration following the adjustments. If                                                                                                calibrated and operated according to the
     multiple electronic ranges are to be used,                                  difference between the instrument responses
                                                                                 for each gas prior to and after the emission                 procedures of this appendix or ASTM E 260
     each additional range must be checked with                                                                                               and ASTM E 697. Samples may be analyzed
                                                                                 test run using the equation in section 12.4.
     a mid-level calibration gas to verify the                                                                                                immediately after a sample is taken, or they
                                                                                 If the drift values exceed the specified limits
     multiplication factor.                                                                                                                   may be stored for future analysis. Experience
                                                                                 (section 13), invalidate the test results
        Note: If using an FTIR for the analytical                                preceding the check and repeat the test                      has shown no degradation of concentration
     instrument, you may choose to follow the                                    following corrections to the measurement                     in polypropylene syringes when stored for
     pretest preparation, evaluation, and                                        system. Alternatively, recalibrate the test                  several months as long as the needle or
     calibration procedures of Method 320                                        measurement system as in section 8.5.1 and                   syringe is plugged. Polypropylene syringes
     (section 8.0) (40 CFR part 63, Appendix A)                                  report the results using both sets of                        should be discarded after one use to
     in lieu of the above procedure.                                             calibration data (i.e., data determined prior to             eliminate the possibility of cross
        8.5.2 Response Time Test. Conduct this                                   the test period and data determined                          contamination of samples.
     test once prior to each test series. Introduce                              following the test period).
     zero gas into the measurement system at the                                                                                              9.0   Quality Control
                                                                                    Note: If using an FTIR for the analytical
     calibration valve assembly. When the system                                 instrument, you may choose to follow the                       9.1 Sampling, System Leak Check. A
     output has stabilized, switch quickly to the                                post-test calibration procedures of Method                   sampling system leak check should be
     high-level calibration gas. Record the time                                 320 (section 8.11.2) in lieu of the above                    conducted prior to and after each test run to
     from the concentration change to the                                        procedures.                                                  ensure the integrity of the sampling system.


     9.2     Zero and Calibration Drift Tests

                                   Section                                                     Quality control measure                                            Effect

     8.5.4 ...................................................................   Zero and calibration drift tests .........................   Ensures that bias introduced by drift in the
                                                                                                                                                measurement system output during the run
                                                                                                                                                is no greater than 3 percent of span.



     10.0     Calibration and Standardization                                    velocity, molecular weight, and moisture of                  of greater than ± 5 percent at the field
                                                                                 the control device inlet air.                                operating range. Prior to the test, verify the
       10.1 Control Device Inlet Air Flow Rate
                                                                                   10.2 Tracer Gas Injection Rate. A dry gas                  calibration of the selected flow measurement
     Measurement Equipment. Follow the                                           volume flow meter, mass flow meter, or                       device using either a wet test meter,
     equipment calibration requirements specified                                orifice can be used to measure the tracer gas                spirometer, or liquid displacement meter as
     in Methods 2, 3, and 4 for measuring the                                    injection flow rate. The selected flow                       the calibration device. Select a minimum of
                                                                                 measurement device must have an accuracy                     two flow rates to bracket the expected field



VerDate Dec<13>2002         16:26 Jan 08, 2003         Jkt 200001      PO 00000      Frm 00061    Fmt 4701    Sfmt 4700    E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM       09JAP2
     1336                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules

     operating range of the flow meter. Conduct              QT¥MIN = minimum volumetric flow rate of               Cspan = Span value, ppmv
     three calibration runs at each of the two                     tracer gas injected, scfm                           12.5 Calculate Capture Efficiency. The
     selected flow rates. For each run, note the             QE = volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas,              equation to calculate press enclosure capture
     exact quantity of gas as determined by the                    scfm                                             efficiency is provided below:
     calibration standard and the gas volume                 CT = Tracer gas (SF6) concentration in gas
                                                                                                                    CE = (SF6¥CD ÷ SF6¥INJ) × 100
     indicated by the flow meter. For each flow                    blend, percent by volume
     rate, calculate the average percent difference          MML = minimum measured level, ppmv = 10                Where:
     of the indicated flow compared to the                         × IRDL (for this example)                        CE = capture efficiency
     calibration standard.                                   IRDL= IR detection limit, ppmv                         SF6¥CD = mass of SF6 measured at the inlet
       10.3 Spectrometer. Follow the calibration                Standard conditions: 20 °C, 760 mm Hg.                   to the CD
     requirements specified by the equipment                    To estimate the maximum tracer gas                  SF6¥INJ = mass of SF6 injected from the tracer
     manufacturer for infrared spectrometer                  injection rate, assume that the span value is               source into the PPE
     measurements and conduct the pretest                    desired at the measurement location. The               Calculate the CE for each of the initial three
     calibration error test specified in section             following equation can be used to estimate             test runs. Then, follow the procedures
     8.5.1. Note: if using an FTIR analytical                the maximum tracer gas injection rate:                 outlined in section 12.6 to calculate the
     instrument see Method 320, section 10.                                                                         Overall Capture Efficiency.
                                                             ((QT¥MAX × 0.8)/QE) × (CT ÷ 100) × 106 = span
       10.4 Gas Chromatograph. Follow the pre-                                                                         12.6 Calculate Overall Capture Efficiency.
                                                                   value
     test calibration requirements specified in                                                                     After calculating the capture efficiency for
                                                             QT¥MAX = 1.25 × span value × (QE /CT) ×
     section 8.5.1.                                                                                                 each of the initial three test runs, follow the
                                                                   10¥4
       10.4 Gas Chromatograph for Ambient                                                                           procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK,
     Sampling (Optional). For the optional                   Where:
                                                                                                                    Appendix A to determine if the results of the
     ambient sampling, follow the calibration                QT¥MAX = maximum volumetric flow rate of               testing can be used in determining
     requirements specified in section 8.5.1 or                    tracer gas injected, scfm                        compliance with the requirements of the
     ASTM E 260 and E 697 and by the equipment               Span value = Instrument span value, ppmv               proposed rule. There are two methods that
     manufacturer for gas chromatograph                         The following example illustrates this              can be used: the DQO and LCL methods. The
     measurements.                                           calculation procedure:                                 DQO method is described in section 3 of 40
     11.0 Analytical Procedures                                 Find the range of volumetric flow rate of           CFR part 63, subpart KK, Appendix A and
                                                             tracer gas to be injected when the following           provides a measure of the precision of the
       The sample collection and analysis are                parameters are known:                                  capture efficiency testing conducted. Section
     concurrent for this method (see section 8.0).                                                                  3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK, Appendix
                                                             QE = 60,000 scfm (typical exhaust gas flow
     12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis                           rate from a press enclosure)                     A provides an example calculation using
                                                             CT = 2 percent SF6 in nitrogen                         results from a facility. If the DQO criteria are
        12.1 Estimate MML and Span. The MML
                                                             IRDL= 0.01 ppmv (per manufacturer’s                    met using the first set of three test runs, then
     is the minimum measurement level. The
                                                                   specifications)                                  the facility can use the average capture
     selection of this level is at the discretion of
     the tester. However, the MML must be higher             MML = 10 × IRDL = 0.10 ppmv                            efficiency of these test results to determine
     than the low-level calibration standard and             Span value = 0.40 ppmv                                 the capture efficiency of the partial hot press
     the tester must be able to measure at this              QT = ?                                                 enclosure. If the DQO criteria are not met
     level with a precision of ≤10 percent. As an               Minimum tracer gas volumetric flow rate:            then the facility can conduct another set of
     example, select the MML as 10 times the                                                                        three runs and run the DQO analysis again
                                                             QT¥MIN = 1.25 × MML × (QE /CT) × 10¥4                  using the results from the six runs OR the
     instrument’s published detection limit. The             QT¥MIN = 1.25 × 0.10 × (60,000/2) × 10¥4 =
     detection limit of one instrument is 0.01                                                                      facility can elect to use the LCL approach.
                                                                   0.375 scfm                                          The LCL method is described in section 4
     parts per million by volume (ppmv).
                                                                Maximum tracer gas volumetric flow rate:            of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK, Appendix A
     Therefore, the MML would be 0.10 ppmv.
     Select the low-level calibration standard as            QT¥MAX = 1.25 × span value × (QE /CT) ×                and provides sources that may be performing
     0.08 ppmv. The high-level standard would be                   10¥4                                             much better than their regulatory
     four times the low-level standard or 0.32               QT¥MAX = 1.25 × 0.40 × (60,000/2) × 10¥4 =             requirement a screening option by which
     ppmv. A reasonable mid-level standard                         1.5 scfm                                         they can demonstrate compliance. The LCL
     would then be 0.20 ppmv (halfway between                   In this example, the estimated total                approach compares the 80 percent lower
     the low-level standard and the high-level               volumetric flow rate of the two percent SF6            confidence limit for the mean measured CE
     standard). Finally, the span value would be             tracer gas injected through the manifolds in           value to the applicable regulatory
     approximately 0.40 ppmv (the high-level                 the partial enclosure lies between 0.375 and           requirement. If the LCL capture efficiency is
     value is 80 percent of the span). In this               1.5 scfm.                                              higher than the applicable limit, then the
     example, the following MML, calibration                    12.3 Calibration Error. Calculate the               facility is in initial compliance and would
     standards, and span values would apply:                 calibration error for the low-level and mid-           use the LCL capture efficiency as the capture
     MML = 0.10 ppmv                                         level calibration gases using the following            efficiency to determine compliance. If the
     Low-level standard = 0.08 ppmv                          equation:                                              LCL capture efficiency is lower than the
                                                                                                                    applicable limit, then the facility must
     Mid-level standard = 0.20 ppmv                          Err = | Cstd ¥ Cmeas | ÷ Cstd × 100
     High-level standard = 0.32 ppmv                                                                                perform additional test runs and re-run the
                                                             Where:                                                 DQO or LCL analysis.
     Span value = 0.40 ppmv
                                                             Err = Calibration error, percent
        12.2 Estimate Tracer Gas Injection Rate              Cstd = Low-level or mid-level calibration gas          13.0 Method Performance
     for the Given Span. To estimate the                           value, ppmv                                         13.1 Measurement System Performance
     minimum and maximum tracer gas injection                Cmeas = Measured response to low-level or              Specifications.
     rate, assume a worst case capture efficiency                  mid-level concentration gas, ppmv                   13.1.1 Zero Drift. Less than ± 3 percent of
     of 80 percent, and calculate the tracer gas                                                                    the span value.
     flow rate based on known or measured                       12.4 Calibration Drift. Calculate the
                                                             calibration drift for the zero and low-level              13.1.2 Calibration Drift. Less than ± 3
     parameters. To estimate the minimum tracer                                                                     percent of the span value.
     gas injection rate, assume that the MML                 calibration gases using the following
                                                             equation:                                                 13.1.3 Calibration Error. Less than ± 5
     concentration (10 times the IR detection limit                                                                 percent of the calibration gas value.
     in this example) is desired at the                      D = | Cinitial ¥ Cfinal | ÷ Cspan × 100
                                                                                                                       13.2 Flow Measurement Specifications.
     measurement location. The following                     Where:                                                 The mass flow, volumetric flow, or critical
     equation can be used to estimate the                    D = Calibration drift, percent                         orifice control meter used should have an
     minimum tracer gas injection rate:                      Cinitial = Low-level or mid-level calibration          accuracy of greater than ± 5 percent at the
     ((QT¥MIN × 0.8)/QE) × (CT ÷ 100) × 106 = MML                  gas value measured before test run, ppmv         flow rate used.
     QT¥MIN = 1.25 × MML × (QE /CT) × 10¥4                   Cfinal = Low-level or mid-level calibration gas           13.3 Calibration and Tracer Gas
     Where:                                                        value measured after test run, ppmv              Specifications. The manufacturer of the



VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00062   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                               Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                                                                    1337

     calibration and tracer gases should provide a                  2. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, EPA                              Revised Capture Efficiency Guidance for
     recommended shelf life for each calibration                  Method 2—Determination of stack gas                               Control of Volatile Organic Compound
     gas cylinder over which the concentration                    velocity and volumetric flow rate.                                Emissions, February 7, 1995. (That
     does not change more than ± 2 percent from                     3. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, EPA                              memorandum contains an attached technical
     the certified value.                                         Method 3—Gas analysis for the                                     document from Candace Sorrell, Emission
                                                                  determination of dry molecular weight.                            Monitoring and Analysis Division,
     14.0   Pollution Prevention [Reserved]                         4. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, EPA                              ‘‘Guidelines for Determining Capture
                                                                  Method 4—Determination of moisture                                Efficiency,’’ January 9, 1994).
     15.0   Waste Management [Reserved]                                                                                                7. Technical Systems Audit of Testing at
                                                                  content in stack gases.
     16.0   References                                              5. SEMI F15–93 Test Method for                                  Plant ‘‘C,’’ EPA–454/R–00–26, May 2000.
                                                                  Enclosures Using Sulfur Hexafluoride Tracer                          8. Material Safety Data Sheet for SF6. Air
       1. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, EPA                                                                                           Products and Chemicals, Inc. Website:
     Method 1—Sample and velocity traverses for                   Gas and Gas Chromotography.
                                                                                                                                    www3.airproducts.com. October 2001.
     stationary sources.                                            6. Memorandum from John S. Seitz,
                                                                  Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and                      17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and
                                                                  Standards, to EPA Regional Directors,                             Validation Data

                      TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF CRITICAL PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS FOR THE PRESS ENCLOSURE TESTING
                                                                Measurement                                      Measurement
                  Measurement                                                                                                                                Measurement site
                                                               instrumentation                                    frequency

     Tracer gas injection rate ................    Mass flow meter, volumetric flow                Continuous ....................................   Injection manifolds (cylinder gas).
                                                    meter or critical orifice.

     Tracer gas concentration at control           Infrared Spectrometer or GC/ECD                 Continuous (at least one reading                  Inlet duct to the control device
       device inlet.                                                                                per minute) for a minimum of                        (outlet duct of enclosure).
                                                                                                    20 minutes.

     Volumetric air flow rate ..................   EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 4 (40 CFR                  Each test run for velocity (min-                  Inlet duct to the control device
                                                     part 60, Appendix A).                           imum); Daily for moisture and                      (outlet duct of enclosure).
                                                   • Velocity sensor (Manometer/                     molecular weight.
                                                     Pito t tube).
                                                   • Thermocouple ...........................
                                                   • Midget Impinger sampler ..........
                                                   • Orsat or Fyrite ...........................


     BILLING CODE 6560–50–P




VerDate Dec<13>2002    16:26 Jan 08, 2003    Jkt 200001   PO 00000      Frm 00063     Fmt 4701     Sfmt 4700    E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM          09JAP2
     1338                    Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules




                                                                                                                                     EP09JA03.014</GPH>




VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00064   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4725   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2
                              Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / Proposed Rules                         1339




     [FR Doc. 03–84 Filed 1–8–03; 8:45 am]
     BILLING CODE 6560–50–C




                                                                                                                                            EP09JA03.015</GPH>




VerDate Dec<13>2002   16:26 Jan 08, 2003   Jkt 200001   PO 00000   Frm 00065   Fmt 4701   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\09JAP2.SGM   09JAP2

								
To top