[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47074-47114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18827]
[[Page 47073]]
Vol. 84
Friday,
No. 173
September 6, 2019
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and
Composite Wood Products Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 173 / Friday, September 6, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 47074]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243; FRL-9999-07-OAR]
RIN 2060-AO66
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood
and Composite Wood Products Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) to
address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR)
that the EPA is required to conduct under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The
EPA is proposing to amend provisions addressing periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction (SSM); add provisions regarding electronic
reporting; add repeat emissions testing requirements; and make
technical and editorial changes. The EPA is proposing these amendments
to improve the effectiveness of the NESHAP. While the proposed
amendments would not result in reductions in emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP), this action, if finalized, would result in improved
monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 21, 2019.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before October 7, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before September 11, 2019, the EPA will hold a hearing.
Additional information about the hearing, if requested, will be
published in a subsequent Federal Register document and posted at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/plywood-and-composite-wood-products-manufacture-national-emission. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for information on requesting and registering
for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0243, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0243 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0243.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
0243, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday--Friday (except federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Ms. Katie Hanks, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2159; fax number: (919) 541-0516;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz,
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0881; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address:
[email protected]. For questions about monitoring and testing
requirements, contact Mr. Kevin McGinn, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D230-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3796; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For information about the
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John
Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2221A), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-1395; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832
or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a
public hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0243. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points
[[Page 47075]]
you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on
the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. The EPA uses multiple acronyms
and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMS continuous monitoring systems
EAV equivalent annualized value
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model-3
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MDF medium density fiberboard
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSB oriented Strandboard
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PBCO production-based compliance option
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PCWP plywood and composite wood products
PDF portable document format
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV present value
RATA relative accuracy test audit
RCO regenerative catalytic oxidizer
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
UF uncertainty factor
[mu]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
D. What other actions are we proposing?
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
[[Page 47076]]
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576,
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the
Plywood and Particleboard source category is any facility engaged in
the manufacturing of plywood and/or particle boards. This category
includes, but is not limited to, manufacturing of chip waferboard,
strandboard, waferboard, hardboard/cellulosic fiber board, oriented
strandboard (OSB), hardboard plywood, medium density fiberboard (MDF),
particleboard, softwood plywood, or other processes using wood and
binder systems. The name of the source category was changed to Plywood
and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63025),
to more accurately reflect the types of manufacturing facilities
covered by the source category. In addition, when the EPA proposed the
PCWP rule on January 9, 2003 (68 FR 1276), the scope of the source
category was broadened to include lumber kilns located at stand-alone
kiln-dried lumber manufacturing facilities or at any other type of
facility.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plywood and Composite Wood National Emission 321999, 321211,
Products. Standards for 321212, 321219,
Hazardous Air 321213.
Pollutants:
Plywood and
Composite Wood
Products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/plywood-and-composite-wood-products-manufacture-national-emission. Following publication in the Federal Register, the
EPA will post the Federal Register version of the proposal and key
technical documents at this same website. Information on the overall
RTR program is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards
for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first
stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second
stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional
standards are needed to address any remaining risk associated with HAP
emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the ``residual
risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk review, the CAA also
requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112 every 8
years to determine if there are ``developments in practices, processes,
or control technologies'' that may be appropriate to incorporate into
the standards. This review is commonly referred to as the ``technology
review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a single rulemaking,
it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The
discussion that follows identifies the most relevant statutory sections
and briefly explains the contours of the methodology used to implement
these statutory requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears
in the document titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews:
Statutory Authority and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also
[[Page 47077]]
establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the
MACT ``floor.'' The EPA must also consider control options that are
more stringent than the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor
are commonly referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain
instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work
practice standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a
numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5)
gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available
control technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu
of MACT standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After
conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA considers
whether a more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which the EPA calls the ``technology review,''
the EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir.
2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667
(D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to
revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
Plywood and composite wood products are manufactured by bonding
wood material (fibers, particles, strands, etc.) or agricultural fiber,
generally with resin under heat and pressure, to form a structural
panel or engineered wood product. Plywood and composite wood products
manufacturing facilities also include facilities that manufacture dry
veneer and lumber kilns located at any facility. Plywood and composite
wood products include (but are not limited to) plywood, veneer,
particleboard, OSB, hardboard, fiberboard, medium density fiberboard,
laminated strand lumber, laminated veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-
dried lumber, and glue-laminated beams.
This proposal includes both a residual risk assessment and a
technology review of the standards applicable to emission sources
subject to the PCWP NESHAP. The NESHAP contains several compliance
options for process units subject to the standards: (1) Installation
and use of emissions control systems with an efficiency of at least 90
percent; (2) production-based limits that restrict HAP emissions per
unit of product produced; and (3) emissions averaging that allows
control of emissions from a group of sources collectively (at existing
affected sources). These compliance options apply for the following
process units: Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones (at new affected
sources); green rotary dryers; hardboard ovens; press predryers (at new
affected sources); pressurized refiners; primary tube dryers; secondary
tube dryers; reconstituted wood product board coolers (at new affected
sources); reconstituted wood product presses; softwood veneer dryer
heated zones; rotary strand dryers; and conveyor strand dryers (zone
one at existing affected sources, and zones one and two at new affected
sources). In addition, the PCWP NESHAP includes work practice standards
for dry rotary dryers, hardwood veneer dryers, softwood veneer dryers,
veneer redryers, and group 1 miscellaneous coating operations (defined
in 40 CFR 63.2292).
In 2007, the D.C. Circuit remanded and vacated portions of the 2004
NESHAP promulgated by the EPA to establish MACT standards for the PCWP
source category. NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The EPA
will address the partial remand and vacatur of the 2004 rule in a
future action. The EPA is not addressing the partial remand and vacatur
in this RTR. The Court vacated and remanded portions of the 2004 rule
based on certain aspects of the MACT determinations made by the EPA. In
the 2004 rule, the EPA had concluded that the MACT standards for
several process units were represented by no emission reduction (or
``no control'' emission floors). The ``no control'' MACT conclusions
were rejected because, as the Court clarified, in a related decision,
the EPA must establish emission standards for listed HAP. 489 F.3d
1364, 1371, citing Sierra
[[Page 47078]]
Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
To address the remand, the EPA plans to develop emission standards
for the relevant process units in a separate action subsequent to this
proposed RTR action for the source category. As noted below, the EPA
conducted an information collection prior to beginning the RTR process
which supplemented the available HAP emission inventory for the
category. The EPA will evaluate the data collected and any additional
information submitted before initiating the rulemaking to address the
remand.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
On October 5, 2017, the EPA issued an Information Collection
Request (ICR) to gather information from PCWP manufacturers to support
conducting the PCWP NESHAP RTR. The ICR gathered detailed process data,
emission release point characteristics, and HAP emissions data for PCWP
process units located at major sources. The response rate for the ICR
was over 99 percent. For more details on the data collection conducted
to prepare inputs for the residual risk assessment, see the memorandum
titled Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for the
PCWP NESHAP in the docket for this rulemaking. For more details on the
data collection conducted for the technology review, see the memoranda
titled Technology Review for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products
NESHAP and Compilation of the Plywood and Composite Wood Products
(PCWP) Information Collection Request (ICR) Responses into an ICR-
Response Data Base, also available in the docket.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
In addition to ICR data spreadsheets provided by respondents, the
EPA reviewed other information sources to determine if there have been
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies by PCWP
facilities to support the technology review of the NESHAP. These
information sources include:
Emissions data (e.g., stack test reports, emissions
calculations) submitted with survey responses;
Facility operating permits submitted with survey responses
or obtained from state agencies;
Semiannual compliance reports submitted with survey
responses;
Other documentation submitted with survey responses (e.g.,
compliance calculations; process flow diagrams);
Information and data analyses submitted by industry
organizations;
Information obtained during site visits and meetings with
stakeholders;
Information on air pollution control options in the PCWP
industry from the EPA's Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best
Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
Clearinghouse;
Information on applicability and compliance issues from
the EPA's Applicability Determination Index; and
Literature review of recent information on PCWP practices,
processes, and control technologies.
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, the EPA describes the analyses performed to
support the proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed
in this proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), the EPA applies a two-step approach to determine whether or
not risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the
Benzene NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be
reduced to any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator
believes that the acceptability of risk under section 112 is best
judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and
information.'' 54 FR 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard
to the ample margin of safety determination, ``the Agency again
considers all of the health risk and other health information
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional
factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be
considered, including cost and economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant
factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration
of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way,
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include
an MIR where 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable and
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be
unacceptable, depending on all of the available information. Similarly,
with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in
the Benzene NESHAP that: ``EPA believes the relative weight
[[Page 47079]]
of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin
of safety can only be determined for each specific source category.
This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along
with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source
category.'' Id. at 38061. The EPA also considers the uncertainties
associated with the various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this
preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and ample margin of
safety.
The EPA notes that we have not considered certain health
information to date in making residual risk determinations. At this
time, the EPA does not attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be
associated with emissions from other facilities that do not include the
source category under review, mobile source emissions, natural source
emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric
transformation in the vicinity of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. The EPA
recognizes that such consideration may be particularly important when
assessing noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health
reference levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on
the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review Panel
are provided in their report, which is available at: https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although the EPA is interested in placing source category and
facility-wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all
sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about
the uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from
emission sources other than those that the EPA has studied in depth
during this RTR review would have significantly greater associated
uncertainties than the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such
aggregate or cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties,
making the assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where the EPA
identifies such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. The EPA also considers the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, the EPA considers the appropriateness of applying controls to
new sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time the EPA originally
developed the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our
investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to
consider. See sections II.C and II.D of this preamble for information
on the specific data sources that were reviewed as part of the
technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that the EPA generally performs during the risk assessment
process. In some cases, the EPA does not perform a specific analysis
because it is not relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of
HAP known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-
HAP), the EPA would not perform a multipathway exposure assessment.
Where the EPA does not perform an analysis, we state that we do not and
provide the reason. While we present all of our risk assessment
methods, we only present risk assessment results for the analyses
actually conducted (see section IV.A of this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections
that follow this paragraph describe how the EPA estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains
the following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment
[[Page 47080]]
inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and
Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as
described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those
described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA's
SAB in 2009; \4\ and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010.
They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
In October 2017, the EPA initiated an ICR to gather information
from U.S. PCWP manufacturers to support conducting the PCWP RTR. The
ICR response period ended in February 2018. The ICR gathered process
data, emission release point characteristics, coordinates, and HAP
emissions data for PCWP process units located at major sources of HAP.
Assembly and quality assurance of the ICR data needed to construct the
residual risk modeling file for the PCWP source category is discussed
in Preparation of Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for the PCWP
NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this action.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. The EPA discussed the
consideration of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final
Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the
proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14,
2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those
actions, the EPA noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable
level is inherently reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum
level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission
standards. The EPA also explained that it is reasonable to consider
actual emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the
risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR
38044, September 14, 1989.)
The PCWP ICR requested that respondents provide estimates of
allowable emissions based on their site-specific circumstances (e.g.,
control measures in place). Therefore, unlike other RTR projects that
develop a multiplier to estimate allowable emissions from actual
emissions reported in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), the
directly reported ICR data for allowable emissions were used for the
PCWP category.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Sroka, K., E. Rickman, and C. Moss, RTI, and K. Hanks, U.S.
EPA. Preparation of Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for the PCWP
NESHAP. Memorandum to the PCWP Docket File. February 7, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The allowable emissions estimates provided by the ICR respondents
were reviewed for completeness and to ensure they made sense relative
to actual emissions. Approximately 95 percent of the allowable
emissions estimates provided by respondents were reasonable and were
used without revision. The remaining allowable emission estimates were
either missing, provided as zero, or otherwise suspect compared to
actual emissions. Because nearly all the allowable emissions estimates
in need of gap-filling were for process units without PCWP MACT
standards requiring use of add-on controls, the gaps and adjustments
were completed by setting the MACT-allowable emission rates equal to
the actual emission rates.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\7\ The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\8\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \9\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\9\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, the EPA
uses the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each
HAP emitted by each source in the source category. The HAP air
concentrations at each nearby census block centroid located within 50
km of the facility are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. A
distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the
1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the
limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD.
For each facility, the EPA calculates the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. The EPA
calculates individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate
[[Page 47081]]
(URE). The URE is an upper-bound estimate of an individual's
incremental risk of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a
concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air.
For residual risk assessments, the EPA generally uses UREs from the
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic
pollutants without IRIS values, the EPA looks to other reputable
sources of cancer dose-response values, often using California EPA
(CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new, scientifically
credible dose-response values have been developed in a manner
consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process
similar to that used by the EPA, the EPA may use such dose-response
values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate.
The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to estimate health
risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category,
the EPA sums the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \10\ emitted by
the modeled facility. The EPA estimates cancer risk at every census
block within 50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is
the highest individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those
census blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, the EPA estimates
the distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. The EPA also
estimates annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime
cancer risk at each census block by the number of people residing in
that block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then
dividing this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, the EPA calculates either an HQ or a target organ-
specific hazard index (TOSHI). The EPA calculates an HQ when a single
noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted,
the EPA sums the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target
organ or target organ system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated
exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is
a value selected from one of several sources. The preferred chronic
noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate
(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a
continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk
of deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA:
(1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the
CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically
credible dose-response value that has been developed in a manner
consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review
process similar to that used by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of the EPA's
efforts to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks
that HAP emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human
health and the environment,\11\ we are revising our treatment of
meteorological data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion
conditions in our acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-
case air dispersion conditions. This revised treatment of
meteorological data and the supporting rationale are described in more
detail in Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood
Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report: Technical Support
Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment. The EPA will be applying
this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support
Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft
Report, May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, the EPA uses the peak hourly emission rate for each
emission point,\12\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions
(i.e., 99th percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure.
Specifically, the EPA assumes that peak emissions from the source
category and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur
and that a person is present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In the absence of hourly emission data, the EPA develops
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for the
Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of
the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5
of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening
Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, the EPA generally uses
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour
[[Page 47082]]
exposure durations, if available, to calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ
is calculated by dividing the estimated acute exposure concentration by
the acute dose-response value. For each HAP for which acute dose-
response values are available, the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \13\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\14\ They are
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.''
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above
which it is predicted that the general population, including
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\14\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \15\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
the EPA's acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result
when we use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute
HQ exceeds 1, the EPA also reports the HQ based on the next highest
acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For this source category, estimates of short-term (maximum hourly)
emissions were submitted by PCWP ICR respondents. In our review of the
ICR data, the EPA compared the short-term emission estimates to annual
emissions estimates to ensure the short-term emission estimates were
reasonable. The EPA gap-filled short-term emission estimates that were
missing or found to be invalid with short-term emission estimates
calculated using a PCWP emission process-specific acute multiplier. The
acute multiplier, which is a factor multiplied by annual emissions to
estimate maximum hourly emissions, was derived from the ICR data for
each emissions process group. The acute factors used to gap-fill
missing or invalid short-term emission estimates in the PCWP ICR
inventory ranged from 1.2 to 10. Further discussion of the process-
specific factors chosen to fill gaps in the ICR data can be found in
the memorandum, Preparation of Residual Risk Modeling Inputs File for
the PCWP NESHAP, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the EPA's acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute
impacts are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than
or equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, the
EPA assesses the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at
an off-site location. For this source category, the data refinements
employed consisted of evaluating residential properties outside the
facility boundaries to estimate acute impacts that exceeded an HQ
screen of 1. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual
Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this source category.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume 1, Appendix D, at
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
For the PCWP source category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of
arsenic, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (dioxins/furans),
polycyclic organic matter (POM), cadmium, mercury, and lead, so we
proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. Except for lead, the
human health risk screening assessment for PB-HAP consists of three
progressive tiers. In a Tier 1 screening assessment, we determine
whether the magnitude of the facility-specific emissions of PB-HAP
warrants further evaluation to characterize human health risk through
[[Page 47083]]
ingestion exposure. To facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions
against previously developed screening threshold emission rates for
several PB-HAP that are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening
exposure scenario developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total
Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure
(TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates
are arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, mercury
compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a conservative
list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See
Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf). In this assessment, we
compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the
potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway.
We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening
assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission rate to the Tier
1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening value.''
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
dioxins/furans, and POM) or, for HAP that cause noncancer health
effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury compounds), a maximum HQ
of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP or combination of
carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening assessment exceeds the Tier
1 screening threshold emission rate for any facility (i.e., the
screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a second screening
assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening assessment. The Tier 2
screening assessment separates the Tier 1 combined fisher and farmer
exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and gardener scenarios that
retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher/farmer
scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1 screening
assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the facility. As
part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within 50 km of
each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from lakes
within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between local
meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the Tier 1
screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each facility
based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations estimated for
the screening scenario change with the use of local meteorology and the
USGS lakes database.
In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures,
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations.
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion
rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end
food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish
(adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption \16\) and
locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally
grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios \17\). If
PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater
than 1, we consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks below a level
of concern. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier
2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
\17\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\18\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition,
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information on the multipathway assessment approach,
see Appendix 6 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and
Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and
[[Page 47084]]
methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the
screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride
(HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA evaluates the
following four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies
(includes water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by
wildlife, and air. Within these four exposure media, the EPA evaluates
nine ecological assessment endpoints, which are defined by the
ecological entity and its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead),
both community-level and population-level endpoints are included. For
acid gases, the ecological assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant
communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, the EPA identified the available ecological
benchmarks for each assessment endpoint. The EPA identified, where
possible, ecological benchmarks at the following effect levels:
Probable effect levels, lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-
observed-adverse-effect level. In cases where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, the EPA
uses all of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether
ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be
considered significant and widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category
in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which
is available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the PCWP source category emitted
any of the environmental HAP. For the PCWP source category, the EPA
identified emissions of arsenic compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/
furans, lead compounds, mercury compounds, POM, HCl, and HF. Because
the above environmental HAP are emitted by at least one facility in the
source category, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that
results in media concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant
ecological benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the
category, the reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each
assessment endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do
not exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility
``passes'' the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated
further under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility
exceed the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the EPA evaluates
the facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, the EPA evaluates
the average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km
radius for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish
tissue concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each
pollutant is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not
exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility
``passes'' the screening assessment and typically is not evaluated
further. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening
threshold emission rate, the EPA evaluates the facility further in Tier
3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, the EPA examines the
suitability of the lakes around the facilities to support life and
remove those that are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled
in or are industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and
conduct hour-by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3
adjustments to the screening threshold emission rates still indicate
the potential for an adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility
emission rate exceeds the screening threshold emission rate), the EPA
may elect to conduct a more refined assessment using more site-specific
information. If, after additional refinement, the facility emission
rate still exceeds the screening threshold emission rate, the facility
may have the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, the EPA compared the average modeled air concentrations (from
HEM-3) of lead around each facility in the source category to the level
of the secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to
provide substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which
can include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, the EPA evaluates the following
metrics: The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds
the ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average
screening value around each facility
[[Page 47085]]
(calculated by dividing the area-weighted average concentration over
the 50-km modeling domain by the ecological benchmark for each acid
gas). For further information on the environmental screening assessment
approach, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in
the docket for this action.
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, the EPA typically
examines the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility
includes all HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under
common control. In other words, the EPA examines the HAP emissions not
only from the source category emission points of interest, but also
emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility for
which the EPA has data. For this source category, the EPA conducted the
facility-wide assessment using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI.
The source category records of that NEI dataset were removed and
replaced with the quality-assured ICR source category dataset described
in the memorandum titled Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling
Input File for the PCWP NESHAP, in the docket for this rulemaking. This
ICR source category dataset was then combined with the non-source
category records from the NEI for that facility. The combined facility-
wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP
that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within
50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source
category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk
analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the
facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks
that could be attributed to the source category addressed in this
proposal. The EPA also specifically examined the facility that was
associated with the highest estimate of risk and determined the
percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of
interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite
Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, available through the docket for this
action, provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide
analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of
source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Plywood and Composite Wood Products Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in
the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment
was performed for this source category, a full discussion of the
uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix
11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual
Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. For example, older emission factors that
do not account for relatively recent reductions in resin formaldehyde
content may have been used by some PCWP mills to estimate emissions
from uncontrolled process units that are hard to test, resulting in
overestimation of formaldehyde emissions. The emission estimates
considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain
years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the
course of a year or variations from year to year. For facilities with
missing or invalid short-term emission estimates in their PCWP ICR
data, the estimates of maximum hourly emission rates for the acute
effects screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment
factor applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are
intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility
operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
The EPA recognizes there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, the EPA selects some model options that
have the potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g.,
not including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). The EPA
selects other model options that have the potential to underestimate
ambient impacts (e.g., not including building downwash). Other options
that the EPA selects have the potential to either under- or
overestimate ambient levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor locations).
On balance, considering the directional nature of the uncertainties
commonly present in ambient concentrations estimated by dispersion
models, the approach the EPA applies in the RTR assessments should
yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP concentrations. After reviewing
the physical characteristics of emission releases from batch and
continuous lumber kilns, dispersion and risk modelers at the EPA
recommend the buoyant plume rise resulting from the elevated
temperature of kiln exhaust be taken into account when modeling kiln
fugitive emissions to improve accuracy. Appendix 12 of the document,
Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, in the docket for this rulemaking describes the
methodology and results. We also note that the selection of meteorology
dataset location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As the EPA
continues to update and expand the library of meteorological station
data used in our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this
variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in the EPA's emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
[[Page 47086]]
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, the EPA reduces uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, the EPA
analyzes large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. The
EPA also adds additional receptor locations where the population of a
block is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in the EPA's risk assessments for cancer effects
from chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and
acute exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed
quantitatively, and others are generally expressed in qualitative
terms. We note, as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-
response uncertainty that is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment; namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA
actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an Agency
policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options that are
used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should be
health protective'' (the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment, page 1-7). This is the approach followed here as summarized
in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in the EPA's risk assessments are those that have
been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of
risk.\19\ That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true
value of a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\20\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach,\21\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\20\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\21\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. The EPA established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although the EPA makes every effort to identify appropriate human
health effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the
sources in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source
category are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these
pollutants cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment,
which could result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To
help to alleviate this potential underestimate, where the EPA concludes
similarity with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we
use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which
no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates
appreciable risk, the EPA may identify a need to increase priority for
an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that,
generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental
exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have
been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further,
HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed
qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs
the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP
reductions achieved by various control options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), the EPA conservatively uses the most protective dose-response
value of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk.
Similarly, for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol
diethyl ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, the
EPA also applies the most protective dose-response value from the other
compounds in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emission rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that the EPA conducts under
the RTR program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category
and reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th
percentile) co-occur. The EPA then includes the additional assumption
that
[[Page 47087]]
a person is located at this point at the same time. Together, these
assumptions represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In
most cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point
of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, the EPA generally relies on site-specific
levels of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a
refined assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is
necessary or whether it is necessary to perform an environmental
screening assessment. This determination is based on the results of a
three-tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from
models--TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For
lead, the EPA uses AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations,
which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two
important types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models
in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, the EPA
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. The
EPA also assumes an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, the EPA refines the model inputs to account for
meteorological patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using
upper-end national values and identifies the actual location of lakes
near the facility rather than the default lake location applied in Tier
1. By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, the EPA decreases the likelihood
that concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, the EPA refines the model inputs again to
account for hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer.
The EPA can also use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a
TRIM.FaTE run using the screening configuration corresponding to the
lake location. These refinements produce a more accurate estimate of
chemical concentrations in the media of interest, thereby reducing the
uncertainty with those estimates. The assumptions and the associated
uncertainties regarding the selected ingestion exposure scenario are
the same for all three tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, the EPA
employs a single-tiered approach. The EPA uses the modeled air
concentrations and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, the EPA's approach to addressing model input uncertainty
is generally cautious. The EPA chooses model inputs from the upper end
of the range of possible values for the influential parameters used in
the models, and assumes that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out),
the EPA is confident that the potential for adverse multipathway
impacts on human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual
pollutants or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates,
it does not mean that impacts are significant, only that the EPA cannot
rule out that possibility and that a refined assessment for the site
might be necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for
the source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which the EPA can conduct a
meaningful multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For
other HAP not included in our screening assessments, the model has not
been parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some
cases, depending on the HAP, the EPA may not have appropriate
multipathway models that allow us to predict the concentration of that
pollutant. The EPA acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are
evaluating may have the potential to cause adverse effects and,
therefore, the EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as
modeling science and resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the
inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation
cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current
actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the PCWP source
category was estimated to be 30-in-1 million. The risk driver is
chiefly formaldehyde emissions from batch and continuous lumber kilns.
The total estimated cancer incidence based on actual and allowable
emission levels from all PCWP emission
[[Page 47088]]
sources is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 33
years, with emissions from the lumber kilns representing 43 percent of
the modeled cancer incidence in the source category. Emissions of
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and chromium VI compounds contributed 93
percent to this cancer incidence with formaldehyde being the largest
contributor (76 percent of the incidence). Based upon actual emissions
from the source category, approximately 200,000 people were exposed to
cancer risks above or equal to 1-in-1 million.
The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values based on actual and
allowable emissions for the source category were estimated to be less
than 1. Based upon actual emissions from the source category,
respiratory risks were driven by acrolein, acetaldehyde, and
formaldehyde emissions from batch lumber kilns. Based upon allowable
emissions from the source category, the respiratory risk was driven by
methylene diphenyl diisocyanate emissions from a miscellaneous coating
operation and formaldehyde emissions from lumber kilns.
Table 2--Plywood and Composite Wood Products Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Maximum population at Estimated annual Maximum chronic Maximum screening
Risk assessment Number of individual cancer increased risk of cancer incidence noncancer TOSHI acute noncancer HQ
facilities \2\ risk (in 1 cancer >=1-in-1 (cases per year) \4\ \5\
million) \3\ million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................... 233 30 204,000 0.03 0.8 4 (REL) 0.2 (AEGL-1).
Facility-Wide..................... 233 30 260,000 0.04 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Allowable Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................... 233 30 230,000 0.03 0.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 230 operating facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD plus three existing
facilities that are currently closed but maintain active operating permits.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PCWP source category is the respiratory system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, the EPA also shows the HQ using the next
lowest available acute dose-response value.
2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there
is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum
refined off-site acute noncancer HQ values for the source category were
equal to 4 from acrolein emissions and 2 from formaldehyde emissions
(based on the acute (1-hr) REL for these pollutants). The acrolein and
formaldehyde maximum HQ values were at separate facilities. No other
acute health benchmarks were exceeded for this source category. The
acute risk driver for acrolein was primarily from continuous lumber
kilns and the MIR location for acute formaldehyde risks were from batch
lumber kilns. The continuous and batch lumber kilns were modeled with
hourly emissions ranging from 2 to 8 times the annual average hourly
emissions rate. Acute HQs are not calculated for allowable or whole
facility emissions.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that
PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) emitted from
the source category exceeded the screening values for the carcinogenic
PB-HAP (arsenic, dioxin/furan, and POM compounds) and for the
noncarcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium and mercury) based upon emissions from
48 facilities reporting carcinogenic PB-HAP and 19 facilities reporting
non-carcinogenic PB-HAP in the source category. For the PB-HAP and
facilities that did not screen out at Tier 1, the EPA conducted a Tier
2 screening analysis.
The Tier 2 screen replaces some of the assumptions used in Tier 1
with site-specific data, the location of fishable lakes, and local wind
direction and speed. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on high-end
assumptions about consumption of local fish and locally grown or raised
foods (adult female angler at 99th percentile consumption for fish \23\
for the fisher scenario and 90th percentile for consumption of locally
raised livestock and grown produce (vegetables and fruits) \24\) for
the farmer scenario and uses an assumption that the same individual
consumes each of these foods in high end quantities (i.e., that an
individual has high end ingestion rates for each food). The result of
this analysis was the development of site-specific concentrations of
dioxin/furan, POM compounds, arsenic compounds, cadmium and mercury
compounds. It is important to note that, even with the inclusion of
some site-specific information in the Tier 2 analysis, the multipathway
screening analysis is a still a very conservative, health-protective
assessment (e.g., upper-bound consumption of local fish, locally grown,
and/or raised foods) and in all likelihood will yield results that
serve as an upper-bound multipathway risk associated with a facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
\24\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this upper-bound Tier 2 screening assessment for
carcinogens, the dioxin/furan and POM emission rates for all facilities
and scenarios were below levels of concern. Arsenic emissions exceeded
the screening value by a factor of 70 for the farmer scenario, a factor
of 40 for the gardener scenario, and a factor of 6 for the fisher
scenario. The Tier 2 gardener scenario is based upon the same ingestion
rate of produce as the farmer for a rural environment. No additional
refined screens or site-specific assessments were conducted for
[[Page 47089]]
emissions of arsenic based upon the conservative nature of the Tier 2
screen and because the screening value was below the level of
acceptability of 100-in-1 million. For the non-carcinogens, emissions
of cadmium were below an HQ of 1 for the Tier 2 fisher scenario. For
mercury, three facilities exceeded the Tier 2 multipathway screening
values of 1 by a factor of 2 based upon aggregate lake impacts by
facilities within the source category for the fisher scenario.
For mercury, the EPA conducted a Tier 3 multipathway screen for two
facilities which included two of the three individual stages. These
stages included a lake assessment for fishability and the mass lost due
to plume rise, a time-series assessment was not conducted. A lake and
plume rise assessment was conducted resulting in a maximum Tier 3
screening value of 2, a 20-percent reduction in their Tier 2 screening
value was achieved due to plume rise. A screening value in any of the
tiers is not an estimate of the cancer risk or a noncancer HQ (or HI).
Rather, a screening value represents a high-end estimate of what the
risk or hazard may be. For example, facility emissions resulting in a
screening value of 2 for a non-carcinogen can be interpreted to mean
that we are confident that the HQ would be lower than 2. Similarly,
facility emissions resulting in a cancer screening value of 40 for a
carcinogen means that we are confident that the cancer risk is lower
than 40-in-1 million. Our confidence comes from the health-protective
assumptions that are incorporated into the screens: We choose inputs
from the upper end of the range of possible values for the influential
parameters used in the screens; and we assume food consumption
behaviors that would lead to high total exposure. This risk assessment
estimates the maximum hazard for mercury through fish consumption based
on upper bound screens and the maximum excess cancer risks from
dioxins/furans and arsenic through ingestion of fish and farm produce.
When we progress from the model designs of the Tier 1, 2, and 3
screens to a site-specific assessment, we refine the risk assessment
through incorporation of additional site-specific data and enhanced
model designs. Site-specific refinements include the following; (1)
improved spatial locations identifying the boundaries of the watershed
and lakes within the watershed as it relates to surrounding facilities
within the source category; (2) calculating actual soil/water run-off
amounts to target lakes based upon actual soil type(s) and elevation
changes associated with the affected watershed versus assuming a worst-
case assumption of 100-percent run-off to target lakes; and (3)
incorporating AERMOD deposition of pollutants into TRIM.FaTE to
accurately account for site-specific release parameters such as stack
heights and exit gas temperatures, versus using TRIMFaTE's simple
dispersion algorithms that assume the pollutant is uniformly
distributed within the airshed. These refinements have the net effect
of improved modeling of the mass of HAP entering a lake by more
accurately defining the watershed/lake boundaries as well as the
dispersion of HAP into the atmosphere to better reflect deposition
contours across all target watersheds and lakes in our 50 km model
domain.
The maximum mercury Tier 2 noncancer screening value for this
source category is 2 with subsequent refinement resulting in a Tier 3
screening value of 2. No additional refinements to the Tier 3 screen
value of 2 were conducted by the EPA. Risk results from four site-
specific mercury assessments the EPA has conducted for four RTR source
categories resulted in noncancer HQs that range from 50 to 800 times
lower than the respective Tier 2 screening value for these facilities
(refer to EPA Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243 for a copy of these
reports).\25\ Based on our review of these analyses, we would expect at
least a one order of magnitude decrease in all Tier 2 noncancer
screening values for mercury for the PCWP source category, if we were
to perform a site-specific assessment. In addition, based upon the
conservative nature of the screens and the level of additional
refinements that would go into a site-specific multipathway assessment,
were one to be conducted, we are confident that the HI for ingestion
exposure, specifically mercury through fish ingestion, is less than 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ EPA Docket records: Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Taconite Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019
Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule; and Appendix 11 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal and Oil-Fired EGU Source
Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further details on the Tier 3 screening assessment can be found in
Appendix 11 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood Composite and
Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions
of lead, the EPA compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the
primary NAAQS level for lead (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\, arithmetic mean
concentration over a 3-month period. The highest annual average lead
concentration of 0.013 [micro]g/m\3\ is below the NAAQS level for lead,
indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
The EPA conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for
the PCWP source category for the following pollutants: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, HCl, HF, lead, mercury (methyl mercury and
mercuric chloride), and POM.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, dioxins/furans, and POM
emissions had no Tier 1 exceedances for any ecological benchmark.
Divalent mercury emissions at nine facilities had Tier 1 exceedances
for the surface soil threshold levels (invertebrate and plant
communities) by a maximum screening value of 5. Methyl mercury
emissions at 13 facilities had Tier 1 exceedances for the surface soil
NOAEL (avian ground insectivores) by a maximum screening value of 7.
A Tier 2 screening assessment was performed for divalent mercury
and methyl mercury. Divalent mercury and methyl mercury had no Tier 2
exceedances for any ecological benchmark. For lead, the EPA did not
estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl and HF,
the average modeled concentration around each facility (i.e., the
average concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling
domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition, each
individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., each off-site
data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks
for all facilities. Based on the results of the environmental risk
screening analysis, the EPA does not expect an adverse environmental
effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that
of the 233 facilities, 182 facilities have a facility-wide MIR cancer
risk greater than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer risk
is 30-in-1 million, mainly driven by formaldehyde emissions from batch
and continuous lumber kilns. The
[[Page 47090]]
total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is 0.04 excess
cancer cases per year, or one case in every 25 years. Approximately
260,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than 1-in-1
million. The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated
to be equal to 1, driven by emissions of acrolein, chlorine, and HCl
from non-category sources.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, the EPA evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the PCWP
source category across different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 3--Plywood and Composite Wood Products Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk at or Population with
Nationwide above 1-in-1 chronic hazard
million due to index above 1 due
PCWP to PCWP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population....................................... 317,746,049 204,164 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................. 62 63 0
All Other Races........................................ 38 37 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)....... 18 9 0
African American....................................... 12 24 0
Native American........................................ 0.8 1.1 0
Other and Multiracial.................................. 7 3 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.................................... 14 23 0
Above Poverty Level.................................... 86 77 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.............. 14 18 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma................. 86 82 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................ 6 2 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the PCWP source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
200,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and zero
people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of
the at-risk population in four of the eleven demographic groups
(African American, Native American, below poverty level, and over 25
without a high school diploma) are greater than their respective
nationwide percentages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Plywood and
Composite Wood Products Source Category, available in the docket for
this action.
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an 'acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).
In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and
allowable emissions from the PCWP source category. In determining
whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all available health
information and risk estimation uncertainty, as described above. Table
2 summarizes the risk assessment results for the source category. The
results for the PCWP source category indicate that both the actual and
allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are
below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million (see
discussion of presumptive risk in background section II.A). The
residual risk assessment for the PCWP category \26\ estimated cancer
incidence rate at 0.03 cases per year based on both source category
actual and allowable emissions. The low number for the predicted cancer
incidence is, in part
[[Page 47091]]
due to the rural location of many PCWP facilities. The population
estimate of 204,000 people exposed to a cancer risk equal to or above
1-in-1 million from source category actual emissions from 170
facilities reflects the rural nature of the source category. Another
factor in the low incidence number is that the estimate of people
exposed to a cancer risk greater than 10-in-1 million from source
category actual emissions drops to 650 people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite Wood
Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is
less than 1 for actual and allowable emissions from the source
category. The results of the acute screening analysis showed maximum
acute HQs of 4 for acrolein and 2 for formaldehyde emissions. The EPA
is proposing to find the acute risks acceptable for the source category
considering the conservative assumptions used that err on the side of
overestimating acute risk (as discussed in section III.C.7.e).
Maximum cancer risk due to ingestion exposures estimated using
health-protective risk screening assumptions are below 6-in-1 million
for the Tier 2 fisher scenario and below 40-in-1 million for the Tier 2
rural gardener exposure scenario. While the Tier 3 screening analyses
of mercury exposure due to fish ingestion determined that the maximum
HQ for mercury would be less than 2, the EPA is confident that this
estimate would be reduced if further refined to incorporate enhanced
site-specific analyses such as improved model boundary identification
with refined soil/water run-off calculations and use of AERMOD
deposition outputs in the TRIM.FaTE model. Considering all of the
health risk information and factors discussed above, as well as the
uncertainties discussed in section III of this preamble, we propose
that the risks posed by emissions from the PCWP source category are
acceptable after implementation of the existing MACT standards.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), the EPA conducted an analysis
to determine if the current emissions standards provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety
analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the risk
assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available control
technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and
costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to
this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks)
due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment. Although the
EPA is proposing that the risks from this source category are
acceptable for both inhalation and multipathway, risk estimates for
approximately 200,000 people in the exposed population surrounding 170
facilities producing PCWP or kiln-dried lumber are equal to or above 1-
in-1 million, caused primarily by formaldehyde emissions. The EPA
considered whether the PCWP MACT standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. The EPA did not identify methods for
further reducing HAP emissions from the PCWP source category that would
achieve meaningful risk reductions for purposes of the ample margin of
safety analysis. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that the current PCWP
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
and revision of the promulgated standards is not required.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
The EPA does not expect there to be an adverse environmental effect
as a result of HAP emissions from this source category and we are
proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on the EPA's
technology review?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, the EPA's
technology review focused on identifying developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies for process units subject to
standards under the NESHAP that have occurred since 2004 when emission
standards were promulgated for the PCWP source category. The EPA
reviewed ICR responses and other available information (described in
sections II.C and II.D of this preamble) to conduct the technology
review. The following process units were included in our review: Green
rotary dryers, hardboard ovens, pressurized refiners, primary tube
dryers, reconstituted wood product presses, softwood veneer dryer
heated zones, rotary strand dryers, secondary tube dryers, conveyor
strand dryers, fiberboard mat dryers, press predryers, and
reconstituted wood product board coolers. The technological basis for
the promulgated PCWP NESHAP was use of incineration-based or biofilter
add-on controls to reduce HAP emissions. Incineration-based controls
include regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs), regenerative catalytic
oxidizers (RCOs), and incineration of process exhaust in an onsite
combustion unit (referred to as ``process incineration''). In addition
to the add-on control device compliance options in Table 1B to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart DDDD, Table 1A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD
contains production-based compliance options (PBCO) for process units
with low emissions due to pollution prevention measures inherent in
their process (e.g., low-formaldehyde resins). An emissions averaging
compliance option is also available for existing sources in 40 CFR
63.2240(c). One facility demonstrates compliance with the PCWP NESHAP
using emissions averaging because none of the other compliance options
were feasible for controlling the unique operations at this facility.
Most facilities comply with the PCWP NESHAP using the add-on
control options. The EPA observed in our review that many facilities
route multiple process units of the same or different types into one
shared control system. Facilities use RTOs, RCOs, process incineration,
and biofilter control systems as expected. The numerous different
process unit and control device combinations that are used in the
source category underscore the ongoing utility of the compliance
options in Table 1B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. The EPA reviewed
emissions test data for PCWP process units with add-on controls and
concluded that no change in the add-on control emission limits is
necessary considering emissions variability. The incremental cost of
increasing the required HAP control efficiency from 90-to 95-percent
reduction was estimated for new sources to be $670,000 nationwide for a
nationwide HAP reduction of 47 tpy ($14,400 per ton of HAP reduced).
The EPA is not adopting this option because it was not clearly
supported by the emissions data reviewed. The emissions data reflected
repeat emissions tests with variability spanning above and below the
95-percent control level, suggesting that maintaining 95-percent HAP
control with some compliance margin would be unachievable for the
variety of process and control configurations used in the industry.
Further, as discussed below, the HAP inlet concentration of some
process units has decreased, making the 90-percent reduction options
more challenging to achieve.
Through our review of the ICR data, the EPA found a few facilities
currently use the PBCO. Due to a development in the PCWP source
category, the EPA expects the PBCO could become more widely used as
current add-on air pollution controls for reconstituted
[[Page 47092]]
wood products presses reach the end of their useful life. In 2008,
after the PCWP NESHAP was promulgated, the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) finalized an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to
reduce formaldehyde emissions from hardwood plywood, MDF, and
particleboard. Consistent with the CARB ATCM, in July 2010, Congress
passed the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, as
title VI of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), [15 U.S.C. 2697],
requiring the EPA to promulgate a national rule. The EPA subsequently
proposed a rule in 2013 to implement TSCA title VI to reduce
formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. The TSCA rule
(Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products, RIN 2070-
AJ44) was finalized by the EPA on December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89674), and
an implementation rule was finalized on February 7, 2018 (83 FR 5340).
Compliance with all aspects of the TSCA rule was required by December
2018. The CARB ATCM and the rule to implement TSCA title VI emphasize
the use of low emission resins, including ultra-low-emitting
formaldehyde and no added formaldehyde resin systems. As facilities
conduct repeat testing, they may find that the inlet concentration of
formaldehyde and methanol from their pressing operations has dropped if
they are now using a different, lower-HAP resin system to comply with
the CARB and TSCA standards. The decrease in inlet concentration may
allow for use of the PBCO without an add-on control device providing a
compliance option in addition to the current add-on control device
compliance option. While the CARB and TSCA standards are a
``development'' within the context of CAA section 112(d)(6), these
rules do not necessitate revision of the previously-promulgated PCWP
emission standards because the promulgated PCWP emission standards
already include the PBCO provisions for pollution prevention measures
such as lower-HAP resins.
The PCWP NESHAP also contains work practice standards for selected
process units in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD; however, the
EPA did not identify any developments in practices, processes, or
controls for these units beyond those identified in the originally-
promulgated PCWP NESHAP. Overall, the EPA's review of the developments
in technology for the process units subject to the PCWP NESHAP did not
reveal any changes that require revisions to the emission standards. As
discussed above, the PCWP rule was promulgated with multiple options
for reducing HAP emissions to demonstrate compliance with the standard.
The EPA found that facilities are using each type of control system or
pollution prevention measure that was anticipated when the PCWP
emissions standards were promulgated. However, the EPA did not identify
any developments in practices, processes, or controls for these units
beyond those identified in the originally-promulgated PCWP NESHAP.
Therefore, the EPA proposes that no revisions to the PCWP NESHAP are
necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details on our
technology review can be found in the memorandum, Technology Review for
the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP, which is available in
the docket for this action.
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions described above, the EPA is
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. The EPA is proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
The EPA is also proposing various other changes, including addition of
electronic reporting, addition of a repeat testing requirement,
revisions to parameter monitoring requirements, and other technical and
editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
The EPA is proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this
rule which appears at 40 CFR 63.2250. Consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in this rule that apply at all
times. The EPA is also proposing several revisions to Table 10 (the
General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail
below. For example, the EPA is proposing to eliminate the incorporation
of the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM
plan. The EPA is also proposing to eliminate and revise certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption
as further described below. As discussed in section IV.E of this
preamble, facilities will have 6 months (180 days) after the effective
date of the final rule to transition from use of the SSM exemption to
compliance without the exemption beginning on the 181st day after the
effective date of the amendments. A 5th column to Table 10 of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart DDDD was added to clearly indicate which requirements
apply before, and then on and after the date 181 days after the
effective date. See section IV.E for more discussion of the compliance
date.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. The EPA is specifically seeking
comment on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has proposed alternate standards for specific periods. The EPA
collected information with the PCWP ICR to use in determining whether
applying the standards applicable under normal operations would be
problematic for PCWP facilities during startup and shutdown. Based on
the information collected, facilities can meet the PCWP compliance
options, operating requirements, and work practices at all times with
two exceptions during periods of startup and shutdown (discussed
further below). Facilities operating control systems generally operate
the control systems while the process unit(s) controlled are started up
and shutdown. For example, RTOs and RCOs are warmed to their operating
temperature set points using auxiliary fuel before the process unit(s)
controlled startup and the oxidizers continue to maintain their
temperature until the process unit(s) controlled shutdown. Biofilters
operate within a biofilter bed temperature range that will be more
easily achieved during startup and shutdown with changes in biofilter
bed temperature operating range discussed in section IV.D.
The two situations where standards for normal operation cannot be
met during startup and shutdown are during safety-related shutdowns and
[[Page 47093]]
pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns. The EPA is proposing work
practice standards in Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD to apply
during these times to ensure that a CAA section 112 standard applies
continuously. Work practices are appropriate during safety-related
shutdowns and pressurized refiner startup/shutdown because it is not
technically feasible to capture and route emissions to a control device
during these periods, nor is it technically or economically feasible to
measure emissions during the brief periods when these situations occur
(i.e., less than the 1-hour test runs or 3 hours required for a full
test). It is particularly infeasible to measure emissions from safety-
related shutdowns because these shutdowns are unplanned.
Safety-related shutdowns differ from routine shutdowns that allow
facilities to continue routing process unit emissions to the control
device until the process unit is shut down. Safety-related shutdowns
occur often enough that they are also distinguished from malfunctions
which are, by definition, infrequent. In addition, the PCWP process
shuts down when these events are triggered. Safety-related shutdowns
must occur rapidly in the event of unsafe conditions such as a
suspected fire in a process unit heating flammable wood material. When
unsafe conditions are detected, facilities must act quickly to shut off
fuel flow (or indirect process heat) to the system, cease addition of
raw materials (e.g., wood furnish, resin) to the process units, purge
wood material and gases from the process unit, and isolate equipment to
prevent loss of property or life and protect workers from injury.
Because it is unsafe to continue to route process gases to the control
system, the control system will be bypassed, in many cases
automatically through a system of interlocks designed to prevent
dangerous conditions from occurring. The EPA is proposing to define
``safety-related shutdowns'' in 40 CFR 63.2292, and to add a work
practice for these shutdown events. The proposed work practice requires
facilities to follow documented site-specific procedures such as use of
automated controls or other measures developed to protect workers and
equipment to ensure that the flow of raw materials (such as furnish or
resin) and fuel or process heat (as applicable) ceases and that
material is removed from the process unit(s) as expeditiously as
possible given the system design. These actions are taken by all
(including the best-performing) facilities when safety-related
shutdowns occur.
Pressurized refiners typically operate in MDF and dry-process
hardboard mills where they discharge refined furnish and exhaust gases
from refining directly into a primary tube dryer. Pressurized refiners
are unable to vent through the dryer to the control system (i.e., the
dryer control system) for a brief time after they are initially fed
wood material during startup or as wood material clears the refiner
during shutdown because they are not producing useable furnish suitable
for drying. During this time, instead of the pressurized refiner output
being discharged into the dryer, exhaust is vented to the atmosphere
and the wood is directed to storage for recycling back into the
refining process once it is running steadily. Information from the PCWP
industry indicates that no resin is mixed with the off-specification
material and that the time periods are short (i.e., no more than 15
minutes) before the pressurized refiner begins to discharge wood
furnish and exhaust through the dryer. Information collected through
the ICR indicates a range of pressurized refiner startup times before
wood furnish is introduced into the system (e.g., up to 4 hours) and
that up to 45 minutes is required to shut down the pressurized refiner
including time after the wood clears the system. Hence, the time when
off-specification material is produced (when emissions are beginning to
be generated during startup or diminishing during shutdown) is only a
fraction of the pressurized refiner startup and shutdown time. Based on
this information, the EPA is proposing a work practice requirement to
apply during pressurized refiner startup and shutdown that limits the
amount of time (and, thus, emissions) when wood is being processed
through the system while exhaust is not routed through the dryer to its
control system. The proposed work practice requires facilities to route
exhaust gases from the pressurized refiner to its control system no
later than 15 minutes after furnish is fed to the pressurized refiner
when starting up and no more than 15 minutes after furnish ceases to be
fed to the pressurized refiner when shutting down. This practice is
consistent with how the best-performing facilities complete startup and
shutdown of pressurized refiners.
The new definition in 40 CFR 63.2292 and the new work practice
standards in Table 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD are designed to
address safety-related shutdowns and refiner startup/shutdown periods.
Facilities have ample profit-incentive to keep the periods when these
work practice standards will be in effect as short as possible because
they are unable to produce usable product during safety-related
shutdowns or pressurized refiner startup/shutdown periods.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under section CAA 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for existing
sources generally must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in
the category. There is nothing in section CAA 112 that directs the
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved''
by the best performing sources when setting emission standards. As the
Court has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of '' sources ``says nothing
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.''
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider
malfunctions as part of that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat
a malfunction in the same manner as the type of variation in
performance that occurs during routine operations of a source. A
malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or
usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider
such events in setting CAA section 112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of
[[Page 47094]]
various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the EPA would have
to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to the wide range of
possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an explosion to minor
mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely to be hopelessly
generic to govern such a wide array of circumstances''). As such, the
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably''
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C.
Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the
extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally
defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect
scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources to conduct
the perfect study.' '') See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d
1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general
limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate
all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of
regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,'
such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification
in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions during a
malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any
other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution
control device with 99-percent removal goes off-line as a result of a
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that
would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99-percent
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher
than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for
malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and
significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA
section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions
is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation
of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80
FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. The EPA also encourages commenters to provide
any such information.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor
maintenance or careless operation per 40 CFR 63.2 (Definition of
malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. General Duty (40 CFR 63.2250)
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1) and (2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in
column 5 which was added to specify requirements on and after the date
181 days after the effective date of the final amendments. Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in
light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. The EPA is proposing
instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2250 that
reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the
reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language
in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails
during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there
is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and
shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty.
Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.2250
eliminates that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
The EPA is also proposing to revise the General Provisions table
(Table 10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and including a
``no'' in column 5. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that
are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are
redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR
63.2250.
b. SSM Plan
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to
a ``no'' in column 5. Generally, the paragraphs under 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)
require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is
proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will
be subject to an emission standard during such events. The
applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources
have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the
SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing
[[Page 47095]]
the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in column 5. The current language
of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during
periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA
requires that some CAA section 112 standard apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards
in this rule to apply at all times.
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) through (9) by redesignating it as 40
CFR 63.6(h)(1) and changing the ``NA'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in
column 5. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources
from opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the
Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision
and held that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standards
apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing
to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing (40 CFR 63.2262)
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to
a ``no'' in column 5. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.2262(a)-(b). The performance testing
requirements the EPA is proposing to add differ from the General
Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The
regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that
restated the SSM exemption. The proposed performance testing provisions
remove reference to 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), reiterate the requirement that
was already included in the PCWP rule to conduct emissions tests under
representative operating conditions, and clarify that representative
operating conditions excludes periods of startup and shutdown. As in 40
CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should
not be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during
malfunctions are often not representative of normal operating
conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that requires the
owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions are
representative. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator
make available to the Administrator such records ``as may be necessary
to determine the condition of the performance test'' upon request but
does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The
regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on
that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
The definition of ``representative operating conditions'' in 40 CFR
63.2292 is also proposed to be clarified to exclude periods of startup
and shutdown. Representative operating conditions include a range of
operating conditions under which the process unit and control device
typically operate and are not limited to conditions of optimal
performance of the process unit and control device.
e. Monitoring
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 4 to a ``no'' in column 5. The cross-references to the general
duty and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary
in light of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)).
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in
column 5. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General
Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA
is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 63.2282(f) text that is
identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is
replaced with the following sentence: ``The program of corrective
action should be included in the plan required under 40 CFR
63.8(d)(2).''
f. Recordkeeping (40 CFR 63.2282)
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) through (iv) by redesignating it as
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no''
in column 5. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during startup and shutdown. The EPA is instead proposing
to add recordkeeping requirements to 40 CFR 63.2282(a). When a source
is subject to a different standard during startup and shutdown, it will
be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and
end to determine compliance with the appropriate standard. Thus, the
EPA is proposing to add language to 40 CFR 63.2282(a) requiring that
sources subject to an emission standard during startup or shutdown that
differs from the emission standard that applies at all other times must
report the date, time, and duration of such periods.
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a
``no'' in column 5. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such
requirements to 40 CFR 63.2282(a). The regulatory text the EPA is
proposing to add differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in
that the General Provisions requires the creation and retention of a
record of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process,
air pollution control, and monitoring equipment. The EPA is proposing
that this requirement apply to any failure to meet an applicable
standard and is requiring that the source record the date, time, and
duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also
proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2282(a) a requirement that sources keep
records that include a list of the affected source or equipment and
actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
failed to meet the standard, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-
loss calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment based on known process parameters.
The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep records of this
information to ensure that there is adequate information to allow the
EPA to determine the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to
provide data that may document how the source met the general duty to
minimize emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable
standard.
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a
``no'' in column 5. When applicable, the provision requires sources to
record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent
with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
[[Page 47096]]
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2282(a).
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) by adding 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) to the entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in column 5. When applicable,
the provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM
events to show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan.
The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no
longer be required.
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no''
in column 5. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
apply. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the
recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR
63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. Reporting (40 CFR 63.2281)
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by redesignating it as 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 4 to a ``no'' in
column 5. Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting requirements
for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General
Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add reporting
requirements to 40 CFR 63.2281(d) and (e). The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. The EPA is proposing
language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard
at any time to report the information concerning such events in the
semiannual compliance report already required under this rule. The EPA
is proposing that the report must contain the number, date, time,
duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if
applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations, mass
balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
The EPA will no longer require owners or operators to determine
whether actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an
SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required. The proposed
amendments, therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary because the events will be
reported in otherwise required reports with similar format and
submittal requirements.
The EPA is proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and including a
``no'' in column 5. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate
report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed
to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. The EPA
will no longer require owners and operators to report when actions
taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent
with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
2. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of PCWP facilities
submit electronic copies of required performance test reports,
performance evaluation reports for continuous monitoring systems (CMS)
measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants (i.e., total
hydrocarbon monitors), selected notifications, and semiannual reports
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the
electronic data submission process is provided in the memorandum,
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243. The
proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \27\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance
evaluation results of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that are supported
by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format
generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation
results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the PCWP semiannual report, the proposed rule requires that
owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet template to submit
information to CEDRI. A draft version of the proposed template for this
report is included in the docket for this rulemaking.\28\ The EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the template. In addition, the EPA is proposing to require
future initial notifications developed according to 40 CFR 63.2280(b)
and notifications of compliance status developed according to 40 CFR
63.2280(d) to be uploaded in CEDRI in a user-specified (e.g., PDF)
format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD--Plywood and Composite
Wood Products Semiannual Compliance Reporting Spreadsheet Template,
available at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.2281(k). The
situation
[[Page 47097]]
where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which
is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents an owner or
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR
63.2281(l). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of
the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \29\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \30\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\31\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews,
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\30\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\31\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Repeat Emissions Testing
As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the emissions
testing requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, and is proposing
to require facilities complying with the standards in Table 1B of 40
CFR part 63, subpart DDDD using an add-on control system other than a
biofilter to conduct repeat emissions performance testing every 5
years. Currently, facilities operating add-on controls are required to
conduct an initial performance test by the date specified in 40 CFR
63.2261(a). In addition to the initial performance test, process units
controlled by biofilters are already required by the PCWP NESHAP to
conduct repeat performance testing every 2 years. Periodic performance
tests for all types of control systems are already required by
permitting authorities for many facilities. Further, the EPA believes
that requiring repeat performance tests will help to ensure that
control systems are properly maintained over time. As proposed in Table
7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD (row 7) the first of the repeat
performance tests would be required to be conducted within 3 years of
the effective date of the revised standards or within 60 months
following the previous performance test, whichever is later, and
thereafter within 5 years (60 months) following the previous
performance test. Section IV.E of this preamble provides more
information on compliance dates. We specifically request comment on the
proposed repeat testing requirements.
4. Biofilter Bed Temperature
Facilities using a biofilter to comply with the PCWP NESHAP must
monitor biofilter bed temperature and maintain the 24-hour block
biofilter bed temperature within the range established during
performance testing showing compliance with the emission limits. The
upper and lower limits of the biofilter bed temperature are currently
required to be established as the highest and lowest 15-minute average
bed temperatures, respectively, during the three test runs. Facilities
may conduct multiple performance tests to expand the biofilter bed
operating temperature range. See 40 CFR 63.2262(m).
The EPA has become aware that multiple facilities are having
difficulty with the PCWP biofilter bed temperature monitoring
requirements as originally promulgated. Biofilter bed temperature is
affected by ambient temperature. Diurnal and seasonal ambient
temperature fluctuations do not necessarily impact the ability of the
biofilter to reduce HAP emissions because biofilters reduce HAP (e.g.,
formaldehyde) emissions over a wide range of bed temperatures.
Facilities have indicated they are not able to schedule performance
tests on the warmest and coolest days of each season because test firms
must plan and mobilize for tests weeks in advance and facilities must
notify their delegated authority 60 days before conducting a
performance test. For example, facilities may schedule a test in the
winter with the intent of measuring emissions during the coldest
conditions in which a biofilter performs, only to find that the weather
changes on the test date to a warmer than expected ambient temperature.
In consideration of this issue, the EPA reviewed biofilter temperature
monitoring data, semiannual compliance reports, and test data showing
that formaldehyde reductions in compliance with emission standards were
achieved at a wide range of biofilter bed temperatures. The EPA is
proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.2262(m)(1) to add a 5-percent variability
margin to the biofilter bed temperature upper and lower limits
established during emissions testing. A 5-percent variability margin
addresses the issues observed in the 24-hour block average biofilter
temperature monitoring data reviewed. The EPA maintains that the
currently-required 24-hour block averaging time is appropriate to
monitor for harsh swings in biofilter bed temperature that could impact
the viability of the microbial population. The 5-percent variability
margin provides flexibility needed to account for small variations in
biofilter bed temperature unlikely to impact the microbial population.
While the proposed regulatory language does not explicitly state
that facilities can use the 5-percent variability margin to expand the
range of the biofilter bed temperature limit established though
previously conducted performance tests, the EPA anticipates that
facilities currently having difficulty maintaining the biofilter bed
temperature limits may wish to adjust their temperature limits. As
originally promulgated, 40 CFR 63.2262(m)(1) states that facilities may
base their biofilter bed temperature range on values recorded during
previous performance tests provided that the data used to establish the
temperature ranges have been obtained using the required test methods;
and that facilities using data from previous performance tests must
certify that the
[[Page 47098]]
biofilter and associated process unit(s) have not been modified since
the test. This provision (if met) clarifies that facilities can adjust
their previously established biofilter temperature range to include the
5-percent variability margin, if desired. Facilities are encouraged to
demonstrate the broadest limits of their compliant temperature
operating parameters with their regular performance tests.
5. Thermocouple Calibration
Facilities with controlled sources subject to the PCWP NESHAP that
use regenerative thermal or catalytic oxidizers to comply with the
standard are required to establish a minimum operating temperature
during performance testing then maintain a 3-hour block average firebox
temperature above the minimum temperature established during the
performance test to demonstrate ongoing compliance. Facilities with
controlled sources subject to the PCWP NESHAP that use biofilters to
comply with the standard are required to establish an operating
temperature range during performance testing then maintain a 24-hour
block average temperature within the temperature range established
during the performance test to demonstrate ongoing compliance. (40 CFR
part 63, subpart DDDD, Table 2). Facilities with dry rotary dryers are
required to maintain their 24-hour block average inlet dryer
temperature less than 600 degrees Fahrenheit. (40 CFR part 63, subpart
DDDD, Table 3). Thermocouples are used to measure the temperature in
the firebox, the biofilter, and the dry rotary dryer. At 40 CFR
63.2269(b)(4), the PCWP NESHAP currently requires conducting an
electronic calibration of the temperature monitoring device at least
semiannually according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owner's
manual. Facilities subject to the standard have explained to the EPA
that they are not aware of a thermocouple manufacturer that provides
procedures or protocols for conducting electronic calibration of
thermocouples. Facilities have reported that since they cannot
calibrate their thermocouples, the alternative is to replace them and
requested that an alternative approach to the current requirement in 40
CFR 63.2269(b)(4) be considered.
The EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 63.2269(b)(4) to allow
multiple alternative approaches to thermocouple calibration. The first
alternative would allow use of a National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulator
to confirm the accuracy of any thermocouple placed into use for at
least one semi-annual period, where the accuracy of the temperature
measurement must be within 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by
the NIST traceable device or 5 [deg]F, whichever is greater. The second
alternative would be to have the thermocouple manufacturer certify the
electrical properties of the thermocouple. The third alternative would
codify the common practice of replacing thermocouples every 6 months.
The fourth alternative would be to permanently install a redundant
temperature sensor as close as practicable to the process temperature
sensor. The redundant sensors must read within 30 [deg]F of each other
for thermal and catalytic oxidizers, within 5 [deg]F for biofilters,
and within 20 [deg]F for dry rotary dryers. The EPA plans to maintain
the option of allowing facilities to follow calibration procedures
developed by the thermocouple manufacturer when thermocouple
manufacturers develop calibration procedures for their products.
6. Non-HAP Coating Definition
The PCWP NESHAP requires use of ``non-HAP coatings'' for ``Group 1
miscellaneous coating operations'' as defined in 40 CFR 63.2292. As
defined, PCWP non-HAP coatings exclude coatings with 0.1 percent or
more (by mass) of carcinogenic HAP. The current ``non-HAP coating''
definition in 40 CFR 63.2292 references Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) which was amended (77 FR 17574, March 26, 2012) and no
longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. The EPA is
proposing to replace the references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 29
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) in the PCWP ``non-HAP coating'' definition with a
reference to a new appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, that
lists HAP that must be below 0.1 percent by mass for a PCWP coating to
be considered as non-HAP coating. The HAP listed in the proposed
appendix B to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, were categorized in the
EPA's Prioritized Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk
Assessments (dated May 9, 2014) as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable
human carcinogen,'' or ``possible human carcinogen'' according to The
Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987),\32\
or as ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be carcinogenic to
humans,'' or with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential''
according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-
03/001F, March 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Technical and Editorial Changes
The following lists additional proposed changes that address
technical and editorial corrections:
The clarifying reference to ``SSM plans'' in 40 CFR
63.2252 was removed because SSM plans will no longer be applicable;
The redundant reference in 40 CFR 63.2281(c)(6) for
submittal of performance test results with the compliance report was
eliminated because performance test results will be required to be
electronically reported;
The EPA revised 40 CFR 63.2281(d)(2) and added language to
40 CFR 63.2281(e)(12)-(13) to makes these sections more consistent to
facilitate electronic reporting;
A provision stating that the EPA retains authority to
approve alternatives to electronic reporting was added to 40 CFR
63.2291(c)(5);
Cross-references to the 40 CFR part 60 appendices
containing test methods were updated in Table 4 of the rule;
Cross-references were updated throughout the rule, as
needed, to match the proposed changes;
Cross-references to 40 CFR 63.14 to remove outdated
paragraph references were updated;
The equation number cross-referenced in the definition of
``MSF'' was corrected; and
The cross-reference in 40 CFR 63.2290 to include all
sections of the General Provisions was updated.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources and other
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or
before September 6, 2019 must comply with all of the amendments 6
months (180 days) after the effective date of the final rule.\33\ For
existing sources, the EPA is proposing changes that would impact
ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD. As
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the EPA is proposing to change
the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the
requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing
the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. The EPA
[[Page 47099]]
is also proposing addition of electronic reporting requirements that
will require use of a semiannual reporting template once the template
has been available on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for 6 months. The EPA's experience with
similar industries shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time-period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; and to update their
operations to reflect the revised requirements. From our assessment of
the time frame needed for compliance with the revised requirements, the
EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious
compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that existing
affected sources be in compliance with this regulation's revised
requirements within 180 days of the regulation's effective date. All
existing affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
requirements of this NESHAP until the applicable compliance date of the
amended rule. Affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed,
no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon initial
startup, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The final action is not expected to be a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule
will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section
112(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, the EPA is proposing new requirements to conduct repeat
performance testing every 5 years for facilities using an add-on
control system other than a biofilter (see section IV.D.3 of this
preamble). Establishing a compliance date earlier than 3 years for the
first repeat performance test can cause scheduling issues as affected
sources compete for a limited number of testing contractors.
Considering these scheduling issues, the first of the repeat
performance tests would be required to be conducted within 3 years
after the effective date of the revised standards, or within 60 months
following the previous performance test, whichever is later, and
thereafter within 5 years (60 months) following the previous
performance test. Thus, facilities with relatively new affected sources
that recently conducted the initial performance test by the date
specified in 40 CFR 63.2261(a) or facilities that were required by
their delegated authorities to conduct a performance test to show
ongoing compliance with the PCWP standards would have 5 years (60
months) from the previous test before being required to conduct the
first of the repeat tests required by the proposed amendment to add
repeat testing.
The EPA specifically seeks comment on whether the compliance times
described in this section provide enough time for owners and operators
to comply with these proposed amendments, and if the proposed time
window is not adequate, we request that commenters provide an
explanation of specific actions that would need to be undertaken to
comply with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to
make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised
requirements. The EPA notes that information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance date.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
The EPA has identified 230 facilities that are currently operating
and subject to the PCWP NESHAP. This includes 109 facilities
manufacturing one or more PCWP products (e.g., plywood, veneer,
particleboard, OSB, hardboard, fiberboard, MDF, engineered wood
products) and 121 facilities that produce kiln-dried lumber. Sixteen
facilities produce PCWP products and kiln-dried lumber. Information on
currently operational facilities is included in the Technology Review
for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP, available in the
docket for this action. In addition, the EPA is aware of 13 greenfield
facilities (four PCWP and nine kiln-dried lumber mills) that recently
commenced construction as major sources of HAP emissions. The EPA is
projecting that two new OSB mills will be constructed as major sources
within the next 5 years, and that existing facilities will add or
replace process units during this same time frame. More details on our
projections of new sources are available in Projections of the Number
of New and Reconstructed Sources for the Subpart DDDD Technology
Review, in the docket for this action.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the 230 facilities in
the PCWP source category are estimated to be 7,600 tons/year. Emissions
of the six compounds defined as ``total HAP'' in the PCWP NESHAP
(acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and
propionaldehyde) make up 96 percent of the nationwide emissions. The
proposed amendments include removal of the SSM exemption and addition
of repeat emissions testing for controls other than biofilters (which
are already require repeat tests). Although the EPA is unable to
quantify the emission reduction associated with these changes, we
expect that emissions will be reduced by requiring facilities to meet
the applicable standard during periods of SSM and that the repeat
emissions testing requirements will encourage operation of add-on
controls to achieve optimum performance. The EPA is not proposing other
revisions to the emission limits that would impact emissions, so there
are no quantifiable air quality impacts resulting from the proposed
amendments.
C. What are the cost impacts?
No capital costs are estimated to be incurred to comply with the
proposed amendments. The costs associated with the proposed amendments
are related to recordkeeping and reporting labor costs and repeat
performance testing. Because repeat performance testing would be
required every 5 years, costs are estimated and summarized over a 5-
year period. The nationwide cost of the proposed amendments is
estimated to include a one-time cost of $1.3 million for facilities to
review the revised rule and make record systems adjustments and a cost
of $3.5 million every 5 years for repeat emissions testing. These costs
are in 2018 dollars. Another metric for presenting the one-time costs
is as a present value (PV), which is a technique that converts a stream
of costs over time into a one-time estimate for the present year or
other year. The EPA estimates that the PV of costs for this proposal is
$5.6 million at a discount rate of 7 percent and $6.9 million at a
discount rate of 3 percent. In addition, the EPA presents these costs
as an equivalent annualized value (EAV) in order to provide an estimate
of annual costs consistent with the present value. The EAV for this
proposal is estimated to be $0.9 million at a discount rate of 7
percent and $1.0 million at a discount rate of 3 percent. The PV and
EAV cost estimates are in 2016 dollars in part to conform to Executive
Order 13771 requirements. For further information on the costs
associated with the proposed amendments, see the memorandum, Cost,
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for Subpart
DDDD, and the memorandum, Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis
for the Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Products Risk and
Technology Review
[[Page 47100]]
(RTR) NESHAP, both available in the docket for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for this proposal, as
detailed in the memorandum titled Economic Impact and Small Business
Analysis for the Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Risk and
Technology Review (RTR) NESHAP, which is available in the docket for
this action. The economic impacts of the proposal are calculated as the
percentage of annualized costs incurred by affected ultimate parent
owners to their revenues. This ratio provides a measure of the direct
economic impact to ultimate parent owners of PCWP facilities while
presuming no impact on consumers. The EPA estimates that none of the
ultimate parent owners affected by this proposal will incur annualized
costs of 1.0 percent or greater of their revenues. Thus, these economic
impacts are low for affected companies and the industries impacted by
this proposal, and there will not be substantial impacts in the markets
for affected products.
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA is not proposing changes to emissions limits, and estimates
the proposed changes (i.e., changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting,
and monitoring) are not economically significant. Because these
proposed amendments are not considered economically significant, as
defined by Executive Order 12866, and because no emissions reductions
were estimated, the EPA did not estimate any benefits from reducing
emissions.
VI. Request for Comments
The EPA solicits comments on this proposed action. In addition to
general comments on this proposed action, the EPA is also interested in
additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other
analyses. The EPA is specifically interested in receiving any
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/plywood-and-composite-wood-products-manufacture-national-emission. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, the EPA requests that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). The EPA requests that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/plywood-and-composite-wood-products-manufacture-national-emission.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1984.08. You can find
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
The information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart DDDD. The information requirements are based on
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for
all operators subject to national emissions standards. The information
collection activities also include paperwork requirements associated
with initial and repeat performance testing and parameter monitoring.
The proposed amendments to the rule would eliminate the paperwork
requirements associated with the SSM plan and recordkeeping of SSM
events and require electronic submittal of performance test results and
semiannual compliance reports. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C.
7414).
Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of facilities
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, that produce plywood,
composite wood products, or kiln-dried lumber.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDD).
Estimated number of respondents: 244 facilities (including existing
and new facilities projected to begin reporting during the ICR period).
Frequency of response: The frequency varies depending on the type
of response (e.g., initial notification, semiannual compliance report).
Total estimated burden: 39,700 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $6,930,000 (per year), includes $2,365,000
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB
[[Page 47101]]
control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to OIRA at [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer
for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than October 7, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. Of the 69 ultimate parent entities that
are subject to the rule, 28 are small according to the Small Business
Administration's small business size standards and standards regarding
other entities (e.g., federally recognized tribes). None of the 28
small entities have annualized costs of 1 percent or greater of sales.
The EPA has, therefore, concluded that this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments
own facilities that are impacted by the proposed changes to the NESHAP.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Plywood and Composite
Wood Products Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found in the docket for
this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
the standards currently listed in Table 4 of the rule (40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDD). While the EPA has identified another 18 voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) as being potentially applicable to this
proposed rule, the EPA has decided not to use these VCS in this
rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other important
technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for NESHAP: Plywood and Composite
Wood Products RTR, in the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons
for these determinations.
The EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR 63.14 to incorporate by reference
EPA Method 0011 for measurement of formaldehyde. EPA Method 0011
(Revision 0, December 1996) is available in ``Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication
No. SW-846. This method was included in the PCWP rule when it was
promulgated in 2004.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.6
of this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Plywood and
Composite Wood Products Source Category, in the public docket for this
action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 22, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 47102]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (n)(7) through
(24) as (n)(8) through (25) and adding new paragraph (n)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(7) SW-846-0011, Sampling for Selected Aldehyde and Ketone
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Revision 0, December 1996, in EPA
Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, IBR approved for table 4 to subpart DDDD.
* * * * *
Subpart DDDD--[Amended]
0
3. Section 63.2233 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2233 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) * * *
(1) If the initial startup of your affected source is before
September 28, 2004, then you must comply with the compliance options,
operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new and
reconstructed sources in this subpart no later than September 28, 2004,
except as otherwise specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2250, 63.2280(b) and
(d), 63.2281(b)(6), 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 7, 9, and 10 to this
subpart.
(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after
September 28, 2004, then you must comply with the compliance options,
operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new and
reconstructed sources in this subpart upon initial startup of your
affected source, except as otherwise specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2250,
63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6), 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables 3, 7, 9,
and 10 to this subpart.
(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice
requirements for existing sources no later than October 1, 2007, except
as otherwise specified in Sec. Sec. 63.2240(c)(2)(vi)(A), 63.2250,
63.2280(b) and (d), 63.2281(b)(6) and (c)(4), 63.2282(a)(2) and Tables
3, 7, 9, and 10 to this subpart.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.2240 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(vi)(A) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.2240 What are the compliance options and operating
requirements and how must I meet them?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], emissions during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction as described in the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan (SSMP). On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], emissions during
safety-related shutdowns or pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.2250 is amended by:
0
a. Adding two sentences to the end of paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (e) through (g).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2250 What are the general requirements?
(a) * * * For any affected source that commences construction or
reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph does not apply
on and after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is
later. For all other affected sources, this paragraph does not apply on
and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
(b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment according to
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). For any affected source that
commences construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this
paragraph does not apply on and after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected
source, whichever is later. For all other affected sources, this
paragraph does not apply on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(c) You must develop a written SSMP according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3). For any affected source that commences construction
or reconstruction after September 6, 2019, this paragraph does not
apply on and after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is
later. For all other affected sources, this paragraph does not apply on
and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
* * * * *
(e) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of
this part, except as noted in Table 10 to this subpart.
(f) Upon [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] or initial startup of the affected source, whichever is
later, for affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 6, 2019, and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for
all other affected sources, you must be in compliance with the
compliance options, operating requirements, and the work practice
requirements in this subpart when the process unit(s) subject to the
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice
requirements are operating, except as specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) Prior to process unit initial startup.
(2) During safety-related shutdowns conducted according to the work
practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart.
(3) During pressurized refiner startup and shutdown according to
the work practice requirement in Table 3 to this subpart.
(4) You must minimize the length of time when compliance options
and operating requirements in this subpart are not met due to the
conditions in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this section.
(g) For affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 6, 2019 and for all other affected
sources on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must always operate and maintain
your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring
equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels required by
this subpart. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require
you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required
by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether
a source is
[[Page 47103]]
operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the source.
0
6. Section 63.2252 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2252 What are the requirements for process units that have no
control or work practice requirements?
For process units not subject to the compliance options or work
practice requirements specified in Sec. 63.2240 (including, but not
limited to, lumber kilns), you are not required to comply with the
compliance options, work practice requirements, performance testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping or reporting requirements of this
subpart, or any other requirements in subpart A of this part, except
for the initial notification requirements in Sec. 63.9(b).
0
7. Section 63.2262 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (m)(1)
and (n)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2262 How do I conduct performance tests and establish
operating requirements?
(a) You must conduct each performance test according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b) through (o) of this section, and
according to the methods specified in Table 4 to this subpart.
(b) Periods when performance tests must be conducted. You must
conduct each performance test based on representative performance
(i.e., performance based on representative operating conditions as
defined in Sec. 63.2292) of the affected source for the period being
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and
shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. You must describe representative operating conditions in
your performance test report for the process and control systems and
explain why they are representative. You must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions are representative. Upon request, you shall make available
to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(1) During the performance test, you must continuously monitor the
biofilter bed temperature during each of the required 1-hour test runs.
To monitor biofilter bed temperature, you may use multiple
thermocouples in representative locations throughout the biofilter bed
and calculate the average biofilter bed temperature across these
thermocouples prior to reducing the temperature data to 15-minute
averages for purposes of establishing biofilter bed temperature limits.
The biofilter bed temperature range must be established as the
temperature values 5 percent below the minimum and 5 percent above the
maximum 15-minute biofilter bed temperatures monitored during the three
test runs. You may base your biofilter bed temperature range on values
recorded during previous performance tests provided that the data used
to establish the temperature ranges have been obtained using the test
methods required in this subpart. If you use data from previous
performance tests, you must certify that the biofilter and associated
process unit(s) have not been modified subsequent to the date of the
performance tests. Replacement of the biofilter media with the same
type of material is not considered a modification of the biofilter for
purposes of this section.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(1) During the performance test, you must identify and document the
process unit controlling parameter(s) that affect total HAP emissions
during the three-run performance test. The controlling parameters you
identify must coincide with the representative operating conditions you
describe according to paragraph (b) of this section. For each
parameter, you must specify appropriate monitoring methods, monitoring
frequencies, and for continuously monitored parameters, averaging times
not to exceed 24 hours. The operating limit for each controlling
parameter must then be established as the minimum, maximum, range, or
average (as appropriate depending on the parameter) recorded during the
performance test. Multiple three-run performance tests may be conducted
to establish a range of parameter values under different operating
conditions.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.2269 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows.
Sec. 63.2269 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Validate the temperature sensor's reading at least semiannually
using the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or
(v) of this section:
(i) Compare measured readings to a National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or
simulate a typical operating temperature using a NIST traceable
temperature simulation device. When the temperature measurement device
method is used, the sensor of the NIST traceable calibrated device must
be placed as close as practicable to the process sensor, and both
devices must be subjected to the same environmental conditions. The
accuracy of the temperature measured must be 2.5 percent of the
temperature measured by the NIST traceable device or 5 [deg]F,
whichever is greater.
(ii) Follow applicable procedures in the thermocouple manufacturer
owner's manual.
(iii) Request thermocouple manufacturer to certify or re-certify
electromotive force (electrical properties) of the thermocouple.
(iv) Replace thermocouple with a new certified thermocouple in lieu
of validation.
(v) Permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as
practicable to the process temperature sensor. The sensors must yield a
reading within 30 [deg]F of each other for thermal oxidizers and
catalytic oxidizers; within 5 [deg]F of each other for biofilters; and
within 20 [deg]F of each other for dry rotary dryers.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.2270 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2270 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
* * * * *
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities; or data recorded during periods of safety-related shutdown,
pressurized refiner startup or shutdown, or control device downtime
covered in any approved routine control device maintenance exemption in
data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating
levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum data
availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the
control system.
* * * * *
[[Page 47104]]
Sec. 63.2271 [Amended]
0
10. Section 63.2271 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(2).
0
11. Section 63.2280 is amended by revising paragraph (b), paragraph (d)
introductory text, and paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2280 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) You must submit an Initial Notification no later than 120
calendar days after September 28, 2004, or after initial startup,
whichever is later, as specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2). Initial
Notifications required to be submitted after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 and on and after
[DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] for all other affected sources must be submitted following
the procedure specified in Sec. 63.2281(h), (k), and (l).
* * * * *
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design
evaluation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in
Tables 4, 5, and 6 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of
Compliance Status as specified in Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii). After [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for affected sources
that commence construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019
and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for all other affected sources, submit all
subsequent Notifications of Compliance Status following the procedure
specified in Sec. 63.2281(h), (k), and (l).
* * * * *
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Tables 5
and 6 to this subpart that includes a performance test conducted
according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must
submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance
test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day
following the completion of the performance test.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.2281 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(4);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(6);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
0
g. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text;
0
h. Revising paragraph (e)(2);
0
i. Adding paragraphs (e)(12) and (13); and
0
j. Adding paragraphs (h) through (l).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2281 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) Unless the EPA Administrator has approved a different schedule
for submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each
report by the date in Table 9 to this subpart and as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
* * * * *
(6) After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] for affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 6, 2019 and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for
all other affected sources, submit all subsequent reports following the
procedure specified in paragraph (h), (k) and (l) of this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the
compliance report must include the information specified in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i) before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction before September 6, 2019.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Information on the date, time, duration, and cause of
deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and
the corrective action taken.
(e) For each deviation from a compliance option or operating
requirement occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS
to comply with the compliance options and operating requirements in
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (6) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
(12) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
(13) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
* * * * *
(h) Submitting reports electronically. If you are required to
submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you
must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). For semiannual
compliance reports required in this section and Table 9 (row 1) of this
subpart, you must use the appropriate electronic report template on the
CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this
subpart once the reporting template has been available on the CEDRI
website for 6 months. The date report templates become available will
be listed on the CEDRI website. If the reporting form for the
semiannual compliance report specific to this subpart is not available
in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report
to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in Sec.
63.13. Once the form has been available in CEDRI for 6 months you must
begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. Initial
Notifications developed according to Sec. 63.2280(b) and Notifications
of Compliance Status developed according to Sec. 63.2280(d) may be
uploaded in a user-specified format such as portable document format
(PDF). The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this
subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If
you claim some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is
confidential business information (CBI), submit a complete report,
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be
generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the
file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic
medium to
[[Page 47105]]
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's
CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
(i) Performance tests. Within 60 days after the date of completing
each performance test required by this subpart, you must submit the
results of the performance test following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively,
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under this paragraph (i) is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in
paragraph (i) of this section.
(j) Performance evaluations. Within 60 days after the date of
completing each continuous monitoring system (CMS) performance
evaluation (as defined in Sec. 63.2), you must submit the results of
the performance evaluation following the procedures specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under this paragraph (j) is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or
other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in
paragraph (j) of this section.
(k) Claims of EPA system outage. If you are required to
electronically submit a report or notification through CEDRI in the
EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to
timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA
system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs
(k)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(l) Claims of force majeure. If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim
of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must meet the
requirements outlined in paragraphs (l)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as
[[Page 47106]]
possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence
should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in
reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
13. Section 63.2282 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2282 What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], the records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through
(v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for affected sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction before September 6, 2019.
After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] for
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
September 6, 2019 and on and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] for all other
affected sources, the records related to startup and shutdown, failures
to meet the standard, and actions taken to minimize emissions,
specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Record the date, time, and duration of each startup and/or
shutdown period, including the periods when the affected source was
subject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown;
(ii) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures; for each failure, record the
date, time, cause and duration of each failure;
(iii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions; and
(iv) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.2250(g), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan, with the program of corrective action included in the
plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).
* * * * *
(f) You must keep the written CMS quality control procedures
required by Sec. 63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the affected
source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the
provisions of this subpart, to be made available for inspection, upon
request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is
revised, you must keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the
performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years
after each revision to the plan. The program of corrective action
should be included in the plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).
0
14. Section 63.2283 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2283 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
* * * * *
(d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
15. Section 63.2290 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2290 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 10 to this subpart shows which parts of the General
Provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.
0
16. Section 63.2291 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2291 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this
section.
* * * * *
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the
EPA required by this subpart.
0
17. Section 63.2292 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``MSF,'' ``non-HAP coating'' and
``representative operating conditions'';
0
b. Adding the definition of ``safety-related shutdown'' in alphabetical
order; and
0
c. Removing the definition of ``startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan.''
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2292 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
MSF means thousand square feet (92.9 square meters). Square footage
of panels is usually measured on a thickness basis, such as \3/8\-inch,
to define the total volume of panels. Equation 3 of Sec. 63.2262(j)
shows how to convert from one thickness basis to another.
* * * * *
Non-HAP coating means a coating with HAP contents below 0.1 percent
by mass for the carcinogenic HAP compounds listed in Appendix B to this
subpart and below 1.0 percent by mass for other HAP compounds.
* * * * *
Representative operating conditions means operation of a process
unit during performance testing under the conditions that the process
unit will typically be operating in the future, including use of a
representative range of materials (e.g., wood material of a typical
species mix and moisture content or typical resin formulation) and
representative operating temperature range. Representative operating
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown.
* * * * *
Safety-related shutdown means an unscheduled shutdown of a process
unit subject to a compliance option in Table 1B to this subpart (or a
process unit with HAP control under an emissions averaging plan
developed according to Sec. 63.2240(c)) during which time emissions
from the process unit cannot be safely routed to the control system in
place to meet the compliance options or operating requirements in this
subpart without imminent danger to the process, control system, or
system operator.
* * * * *
[[Page 47107]]
0
18. Table 3 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--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 [deg]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 (through proper
balancing of the heated zone
exhausts).
(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).
(5) Group 1 miscellaneous coating Use non-HAP coatings as defined
operations. in Sec. 63.2292.
(6) Process units and control systems Follow documented site-specific
undergoing safety-related shutdown on procedures such as use of
and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF automated controls or other
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE measures that you have
FEDERAL REGISTER] except as noted in developed to protect workers
footnote ``a'' to this table. and equipment to ensure that
the flow of raw materials
(such as furnish or resin) and
fuel or process heat (as
applicable) ceases and that
material is removed from the
process unit(s) as
expeditiously as possible
given the system design.
(7) Pressurized refiners undergoing Route exhaust gases from the
startup or shutdown on and after [DATE pressurized refiner to its
181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF control system no later than
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 15 minutes after furnish is
except as noted in footnote ``a'' to fed from the pressurized
this table. refiner to the tube dryer when
starting up, and no more than
15 minutes after furnish
ceases to be fed to the
pressurized refiner when
shutting down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with this
requirement beginning on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] or upon initial startup, whichever is later.
0
19. Table 4 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . . Using . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) each process unit select sampling Method 1 or 1A of 40
subject to a compliance port's location and CFR part 60,
option in table 1A or 1B to the number of appendix A-1 (as
this subpart or used in traverse ports. appropriate).
calculation of an emissions
average under Sec.
63.2240(c).
(2) each process unit determine velocity Method 2 in addition
subject to a compliance and volumetric flow to Method 2A, 2C,
option in table 1A or 1B to rate. 2D, 2F, or 2G in
this subpart or used in appendix A-1 and A-
calculation of an emissions 2 to 40 CFR part 60
average under Sec. (as appropriate).
63.2240(c).
(3) each process unit conduct gas Method 3, 3A, or 3B
subject to a compliance molecular weight in appendix A-2 to
option in table 1A or 1B to analysis. 40 CFR part 60 (as
this subpart or used in appropriate).
calculation of an emissions
average under Sec.
63.2240(c).
(4) each process unit measure moisture Method 4 in appendix
subject to a compliance content of the A-3 to 40 CFR part
option in table 1A or 1B to stack gas. 60; OR Method 320
this subpart or used in in appendix A to 40
calculation of an emissions CFR part 63; OR
average under Sec. ASTM D6348-03 (IBR,
63.2240(c). see Sec. 63.14).
(5) each process unit measure emissions of Method 25A in
subject to a compliance total HAP as THC. appendix A-7 to 40
option in table 1B to this CFR part 60. You
subpart for which you may measure
choose to demonstrate emissions of
compliance using a total methane using EPA
HAP as THC compliance Method 18 in
option. appendix A-6 to 40
CFR part 60 and
subtract the
methane emissions
from the emissions
of total HAP as
THC.
(6) each process unit measure emissions of Method 320 in
subject to a compliance total HAP (as appendix A to 40
option in table 1A to this defined in Sec. CFR part 63; OR the
subpart; OR for each 63.2292). NCASI Method IM/CAN/
process unit used in WP-99.02 (IBR, see
calculation of an emissions Sec. 63.14); OR
average under Sec. the NCASI Method
63.2240(c). ISS/FP-A105.01
(IBR, see Sec.
63.14); OR ASTM
D6348-03 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14)
provided that
percent R as
determined in Annex
A5 of ASTM D6348-03
is equal or greater
than 70 percent and
less than or equal
to 130 percent.
[[Page 47108]]
(7) each process unit measure emissions of Method 308 in
subject to a compliance methanol. appendix A to 40
option in table 1B to this CFR part 63; OR
subpart for which you Method 320 in
choose to demonstrate appendix A to 40
compliance using a methanol CFR part 63; OR the
compliance option. NCASI Method CI/WP-
98.01 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14); OR
the NCASI Method IM/
CAN/WP-99.02 (IBR,
see Sec. 63.14);
OR the NCASI Method
ISS/FP-A105.01
(IBR, see Sec.
63.14).
(8) each process unit measure emissions of Method 316 in
subject to a compliance formaldehyde. appendix A to 40
option in table 1B to this CFR part 63; OR
subpart for which you Method 320 in
choose to demonstrate appendix A to 40
compliance using a CFR part 63; OR
formaldehyde compliance Method 0011 in
option. ``Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods''
(EPA Publication
No. SW-846) for
formaldehyde (IBR,
see Sec. 63.14);
OR the NCASI Method
CI/WP-98.01 (IBR,
see Sec. 63.14);
OR the NCASI Method
IM/CAN/WP-99.02
(IBR, see Sec.
63.14); OR the
NCASI Method ISS/FP-
A105.01 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14).
(9) each reconstituted wood meet the design Methods 204 and 204A
product press at a new or specifications through 204F of 40
existing affected source or included in the CFR part 51,
reconstituted wood product definition of wood appendix M, to
board cooler at a new products enclosure determine capture
affected source subject to in Sec. 63.2292; efficiency (except
a compliance option in or determine the for wood products
table 1B to this subpart or percent capture enclosures as
used in calculation of an efficiency of the defined in Sec.
emissions average under enclosure directing 63.2292).
Sec. 63.2240(c). emissions to an add- Enclosures that
on control device. meet the definition
of wood products
enclosure or that
meet Method 204
requirements for a
permanent total
enclosure (PTE) are
assumed to have a
capture efficiency
of 100 percent.
Enclosures that do
not meet either the
PTE requirements or
design criteria for
a wood products
enclosure must
determine the
capture efficiency
by constructing a
TTE according to
the requirements of
Method 204 and
applying Methods
204A through 204F
(as appropriate).
As an alternative
to Methods 204 and
204A through 204F,
you may use the
tracer gas method
contained in
appendix A to this
subpart.
(10) each reconstituted wood determine the a TTE and Methods
product press at a new or percent capture 204 and 204A
existing affected source or efficiency. through 204F (as
reconstituted wood product appropriate) of 40
board cooler at a new CFR part 51,
affected source subject to appendix M. As an
a compliance option in alternative to
table 1A to this subpart. installing a TTE
and using Methods
204 and 204A
through 204F, you
may use the tracer
gas method
contained in
appendix A to this
subpart. Enclosures
that meet the
design criteria (1)
through (4) in the
definition of wood
products enclosure,
or that meet Method
204 requirements
for a PTE (except
for the criteria
specified in
section 6.2 of
Method 204) are
assumed to have a
capture efficiency
of 100 percent.
Measured emissions
divided by the
capture efficiency
provides the
emission rate.
(11) each process unit establish the site- data from the
subject to a compliance specific operating parameter
option in tables 1A and 1B requirements monitoring system
to this subpart or used in (including the or THC CEMS and the
calculation of an emissions parameter limits or applicable
average under Sec. THC concentration performance test
63.2240(c). limits) in Table 2 method(s).
to this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
20. Table 7 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 47109]]
Table 7 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With the
Compliance Options and Operating Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following You must demonstrate
compliance options continuous
For . . . and operating compliance by . . .
requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Each process unit listed Compliance options Collecting and
in Table 1B to this subpart in Table 1B to this recording the
or used in calculation of subpart or the operating parameter
an emissions average under emissions averaging monitoring system
Sec. 63.2240(c). compliance option data listed in
in Sec. Table 2 to this
63.2240(c) and the subpart for the
operating process unit
requirements in according to Sec.
Table 2 to this 63.2269(a) through
subpart based on (b) and Sec.
monitoring of 63.2270; AND
operating reducing the
parameters. operating parameter
monitoring system
data to the
specified averages
in units of the
applicable
requirement
according to
calculations in
Sec. 63.2270; AND
maintaining the
average operating
parameter at or
above the minimum,
at or below the
maximum, or within
the range
(whichever applies)
established
according to Sec.
63.2262.
(2) Each process unit listed Compliance options Collecting and
in Tables 1A and 1B to this in Tables 1A and 1B recording the THC
subpart or used in to this subpart or monitoring data
calculation of an emissions the emissions listed in Table 2
average under Sec. averaging to this subpart for
63.2240(c). compliance option the process unit
in Sec. according to Sec.
63.2240(c) and the 63.2269(d); AND
operating reducing the CEMS
requirements in data to 3-hour
Table 2 of this block averages
subpart based on according to
THC CEMS data. calculations in
Sec. 63.2269(d);
AND maintaining the
3-hour block
average THC
concentration in
the exhaust gases
less than or equal
to the THC
concentration
established
according to Sec.
63.2262.
(3) Each process unit using Compliance options Conducting a repeat
a biofilter. in Tables 1B to performance test
this subpart or the using the
emissions averaging applicable
compliance option method(s) specified
in Sec. in Table 4 to this
63.2240(c). subpart within 2
years following the
previous
performance test
and within 180 days
after each
replacement of any
portion of the
biofilter bed media
with a different
type of media or
each replacement of
more than 50
percent (by volume)
of the biofilter
bed media with the
same type of media.
(4) Each process unit using Compliance options Checking the
a catalytic oxidizer. in Table 1B to this activity level of a
subpart or the representative
emissions averaging sample of the
compliance option catalyst at least
in Sec. every 12 months and
63.2240(c). taking any
necessary
corrective action
to ensure that the
catalyst is
performing within
its design range.
(5) Each process unit listed Compliance options Collecting and
in Table 1A to this in Table 1A to this recording on a
subpart, or each process subpart or the daily basis process
unit without a control emissions averaging unit controlling
device used in calculation compliance option operating parameter
of an emissions averaging in Sec. data; AND
debit under Sec. 63.2240(c) and the maintaining the
63.2240(c). operating operating parameter
requirements in at or above the
Table 2 to this minimum, at or
subpart based on below the maximum,
monitoring of or within the range
process unit (whichever applies)
controlling established
operating according to Sec.
parameters. 63.2262.
(6) Each Process unit listed Compliance options Implementing your
in Table 1B to this subpart in Table 1B to this plan to address how
using a wet control device subpart or the organic HAP
as the sole means of emissions averaging captured in the
reducing HAP emissions. compliance option wastewater from the
in Sec. wet control device
63.2240(c). is contained or
destroyed to
minimize re-release
to the atmosphere.
(7) Each process unit listed Compliance options Conducting a repeat
in Table 1B to this subpart in Tables 1B to performance test
using a control device this subpart. using the
other than a biofilter. applicable
method(s) specified
in Table 4 to this
subpart by [DATE 3
YEARS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER]
or within 60 months
following the
previous
performance test,
whichever is later,
and thereafter
within 60 months
following the
previous
performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
21. Table 9 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 47110]]
Table 9 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit the
You must submit a(n) . . . contain . . . report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Compliance report....... The information in Semiannually
Sec. 63.2281(c) according to the
through (g). requirements in
Sec. 63.2281(b).
(2) immediate startup, (i) Actions taken By fax or telephone
shutdown, and malfunction for the event. within 2 working
report if you had a days after starting
startup, shutdown, or actions
malfunction during the inconsistent with
reporting period that is the plan.
not consistent with your
SSMP before [DATE 181 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register]a.
(ii) The information By letter within 7
in Sec. working days after
63.10(d)(5)(ii). the end of the
event unless you
have made
alternative
arrangements with
the permitting
authority.
(3) Performance test report. The information According to the
required in Sec. requirements of
63.7(g). Sec. 63.2281(i).
(4) CMS performance The information According to the
evaluation. required in Sec. requirements of
63.7(g). Sec. 63.2281(j).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The requirement for the SSM report in row 2 of this table does not
apply for new or reconstructed affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019.
0
22. Table 10 to Subpart DDDD is revised to read as follows:
Table 10 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart DDDD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart DDDD before Applies to subpart DDDD on and
[DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
Citation Subject Brief description THE Federal Register] except RULE IN THE Federal Register]
as noted in footnote ``a'' to except as noted in footnote
this table ``a'' to this table
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1........................ Applicability......... Initial applicability Yes........................... Yes.
determination;
applicability after
standard established;
permit requirements;
extensions, notifications.
Sec. 63.2........................ Definitions........... Definitions for part 63 Yes........................... Yes.
standards.
Sec. 63.3........................ Units and Units and abbreviations for Yes........................... Yes.
Abbreviations. part 63 standards.
Sec. 63.4........................ Prohibited Activities Prohibited activities; Yes........................... Yes.
and Circumvention. compliance date;
circumvention,
fragmentation.
Sec. 63.5........................ Preconstruction Review Preconstruction review Yes........................... Yes.
and Notification requirements of section
Requirements. 112(i)(1).
Sec. 63.6(a)..................... Applicability......... GP apply unless compliance Yes........................... Yes.
extension; GP apply to
area sources that become
major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4).............. Compliance Dates for Standards apply at Yes........................... Yes.
New and Reconstructed effective date; 3 years
Sources. after effective date; upon
startup; 10 years after
construction or
reconstruction commences
for section 112(f).
Sec. 63.6(b)(5).................. Notification.......... Must notify if commenced Yes........................... Yes.
construction or
reconstruction after
proposal.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).................. [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).................. Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes........................... Yes.
New and Reconstructed major must comply with
Area Sources that major source standards
Become Major. immediately upon becoming
major, regardless of
whether required to comply
when they were an area
source.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).............. Compliance Dates for Comply according to date in Yes........................... Yes.
Existing Sources. subpart, which must be no
later than 3 years after
effective date; for
section 112(f) standards,
comply within 90 days of
effective date unless
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).............. [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).................. Compliance Dates for Area sources that become Yes........................... Yes.
Existing Area Sources major must comply with
that Become Major. major source standards by
date indicated in subpart
or by equivalent time
period (e.g., 3 years).
Sec. 63.6(d)..................... [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)............... General Duty to You must operate and Yes........................... No, see Sec. 63.2250 for
Minimize Emissions.. maintain affected source general duty requirement.
in a manner consistent
with safety and good air
pollution control
practices for minimizing
emissions.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii).............. Requirement to Correct You must correct Yes........................... No.
Malfunctions ASAP. malfunctions as soon as
practicable after their
occurrence.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............. Operation and Operation and maintenance Yes........................... Yes.
Maintenance requirements are
Requirements. enforceable independent of
emissions limitations or
other requirements in
relevant standards.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2).................. [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).................. Startup, Shutdown, and Requirement for SSM and Yes........................... No.
Malfunction Plan SSMP; content of SSMP.
(SSMP).
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................. SSM Exemption......... You must comply with Yes........................... No.
emission standards at all
times except during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3).............. Methods for Compliance based on Yes........................... Yes.
Determining performance test,
Compliance/Finding of operation and maintenance
Compliance. plans, records, inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3).............. Alternative Standard.. Procedures for getting an Yes........................... Yes.
alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1).................. SSM Exemption......... You must comply with NA............................ No.
opacity and visible
emission standards at all
times except during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)-(9).............. Opacity/Visible Requirements for opacity NA............................ NA.
Emission (VE) and visible emission
Standards. standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)............. Compliance Extension.. Procedures and criteria for Yes........................... Yes.
Administrator to grant
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)................. [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)................. Compliance Extension.. Compliance extension and Yes........................... Yes.
Administrator's authority.
Sec. 63.6(j)..................... Presidential President may exempt source Yes........................... Yes.
Compliance Exemption. category from requirement
to comply with rule.
[[Page 47111]]
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2).............. Performance Test Dates Dates for conducting Yes........................... Yes.
initial performance
testing and other
compliance demonstrations;
must conduct 180 days
after first subject to
rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3).................. Section 114 Authority. Administrator may require a Yes........................... Yes.
performance test under CAA
section 114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1).................. Notification of Must notify Administrator Yes........................... Yes.
Performance Test. 60 days before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2).................. Notification of If have to reschedule Yes........................... Yes.
Rescheduling. performance test, must
notify Administrator as
soon as practicable.
Sec. 63.7(c)..................... Quality Assurance/Test Requirement to submit site- Yes........................... Yes.
Plan. specific test plan 60 days
before the test or on date
Administrator agrees with;
test plan approval
procedures; performance
audit requirements;
internal and external QA
procedures for testing.
Sec. 63.7(d)..................... Testing Facilities.... Requirements for testing Yes........................... Yes.
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................. Performance Testing... Performance tests must be Yes........................... No, see Sec. 63.2262(a)-(b).
conducted under
representative conditions;
cannot conduct performance
tests during SSM; not a
violation to exceed
standard during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2).................. Conditions for Must conduct according to Yes........................... Yes.
Conducting rule and EPA test methods
Performance Tests. unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3).................. Test Run Duration..... Must have three test runs Yes........................... Yes.
for at least the time
specified in the relevant
standard; compliance is
based on arithmetic mean
of three runs; specifies
conditions when data from
an additional test run can
be used.
Sec. 63.7(f)..................... Alternative Test Procedures by which Yes........................... Yes.
Method. Administrator can grant
approval to use an
alternative test method.
Sec. 63.7(g)..................... Performance Test Data Must include raw data in Yes........................... Yes.
Analysis. performance test report;
must submit performance
test data 60 days after
end of test with the
notification of compliance
status; keep data for 5
years.
Sec. 63.7(h)..................... Waiver of Tests....... Procedures for Yes........................... Yes.
Administrator to waive
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1).................. Applicability of Subject to all monitoring Yes........................... Yes.
Monitoring requirements in standard.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2).................. Performance Performance specifications Yes........................... Yes.
Specifications. in appendix B of part 60
apply.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).................. [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................. Monitoring with Flares Requirements for flares in NA............................ NA.
Sec. 63.11 apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1).................. Monitoring............ Must conduct monitoring Yes........................... Yes.
according to standard
unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3).............. Multiple Effluents and Specific requirements for Yes........................... Yes.
Multiple Monitoring installing monitoring
Systems. systems; must install on
each effluent before it is
combined 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.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).................. Monitoring System Maintain monitoring system Yes........................... Yes.
Operation and in a manner consistent
Maintenance. with and good air
pollution control
practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)............... Operation and Must maintain and operate Yes........................... No.
Maintenance of CMS. CMS in accordance with
Sec. 63.6(e)(1).
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii).............. Spare Parts for CMS... Must maintain spare parts Yes........................... Yes.
for routine CMS repairs.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............. Requirements to Must develop and implement Yes........................... No.
Develop SSMP for CMS. SSMP for CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3).............. Monitoring System Must install to get Yes........................... Yes.
Installation. representative emission of
parameter measurements;
must verify operational
status before or at
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................. Continuous Monitoring CMS must be operating Yes........................... Yes.
System (CMS) except during breakdown,
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
successive 10-second
period and one cycle of
data recording for each
successive 6-minute
period; CEMS must have a
minimum of one cycle of
operation for each
successive 15-minute
period.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).................. Continuous Opacity COMS minimum procedures.... NA............................ NA.
Monitoring System
(COMS) Minimum
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8).............. CMS Requirements...... Zero and high-level Yes........................... Yes.
calibration check
requirements; out-of-
control periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2).............. CMS Quality Control... Requirements for CMS Yes........................... Yes.
quality control, including
calibration, etc..
Sec. 63.8(d)(3).................. Written Procedures for Must keep quality control Yes........................... No, see Sec. 63.2282(f).
CMS. plan on record for 5
years. Keep old versions
for 5 years after
revisions. May incorporate
as part of SSMP to avoid
duplication..
Sec. 63.8(e)..................... CMS Performance Notification, performance Yes........................... Yes.
Evaluation. evaluation test plan,
reports.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).............. Alternative Monitoring Procedures for Yes........................... Yes.
Method. Administrator to approve
alternative monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................. Alternative to Procedures for Yes........................... Yes.
Relative Accuracy Administrator to approve
Test. alternative relative
accuracy tests for CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)..................... Data Reduction........ COMS 6-minute averages Yes........................... Yes.
calculated over at least
36 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;
rounding of data.
Sec. 63.9(a)..................... Notification Applicability and State Yes........................... Yes.
Requirements. delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(2).............. Initial Notifications. Submit notification 120 Yes........................... Yes.
days after effective date;
contents of notification.
Sec. 63.9(b)(3).................. [Reserved]............
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)-(5).............. Initial Notifications. Submit notification 120 Yes........................... Yes.
days after effective date;
notification of intent to
construct/reconstruct;
notification of
commencement of construct/
reconstruct; notification
of startup; contents of
each.
Sec. 63.9(c)..................... Request for Compliance Can request if cannot Yes........................... Yes.
Extension. comply by date or if
installed best available
control technology/lowest
achievable emission rate.
Sec. 63.9(d)..................... Notification of For sources that commence Yes........................... Yes.
Special Compliance construction between
Requirements for New proposal and promulgation
Source. and want to comply 3 years
after effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e)..................... Notification of Notify EPA Administrator 60 Yes........................... Yes.
Performance Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f)..................... Notification of Notify EPA Administrator 30 No............................ No.
Visible Emissions/ days prior.
Opacity Test.
Sec. 63.9(g)..................... Additional Notification of performance Yes........................... Yes.
Notifications When evaluation; notification
Using CMS. using COMS data;
notification that exceeded
criterion for relative
accuracy.
[[Page 47112]]
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6).............. Notification of Contents; due 60 days after Yes........................... Yes.
Compliance Status. end of performance test or
other compliance
demonstration, except for
opacity/VE, which are due
30 days after; when to
submit to Federal vs.
State authority.
Sec. 63.9(i)..................... Adjustment of Procedures for Yes........................... Yes.
Submittal Deadlines. Administrator to approve
change in when
notifications must be
submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j)..................... Change in Previous Must submit within 15 days Yes........................... Yes.
Information. after the change.
Sec. 63.10(a).................... Recordkeeping/ Applies to all, unless Yes........................... Yes.
Reporting. compliance extension; when
to submit to Federal vs.
State authority;
procedures for owners of
more than one source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................. Recordkeeping/ General Requirements; keep Yes........................... Yes.
Reporting. all records readily
available; keep for 5
years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i).............. Recordkeeping of Records of occurrence and Yes........................... No, see Sec. 63.2282(a).
Occurrence and duration of each startup
Duration of Startups or shutdown that causes
and Shutdowns. source to exceed emission
limitation.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............. Recordkeeping of Records of occurrence and Yes........................... No, see Sec. 63.2282(a) for
Failures to Meet a duration of each recordkeeping of (1) date,
Standard. malfunction of operation time and duration; (2)
or air pollution control listing of affected source or
and monitoring equipment. equipment, and an estimate of
the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted
over the standard; and (3)
actions to minimize emissions
and correct the failure.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)............ Maintenance Records... Records of maintenance Yes........................... Yes.
performed on air pollution
control and monitoring
equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)......... Actions Taken to Records of actions taken Yes........................... No.
Minimize Emissions during SSM to minimize
During SSM. emissions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x)-(xi) CMS Records........... Malfunctions, inoperative, Yes........................... Yes.
out-of-control.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix)....... Records............... Measurements to demonstrate Yes........................... Yes.
compliance with compliance
options and operating
requirements; performance
test, performance
evaluation, and visible
emission observation
results; measurements to
determine conditions of
performance tests and
performance evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)............ Records............... Records when under waiver.. Yes........................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)........... Records............... Records when using Yes........................... Yes.
alternative to relative
accuracy test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)............ Records............... All documentation Yes........................... Yes.
supporting initial
notification and
notification of compliance
status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................. Records............... Applicability Yes........................... Yes.
determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6), (9)-(14)... Records............... Additional records for CMS. Yes........................... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............. Records............... Records of excess emissions No............................ No.
and parameter monitoring
exceedances for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)................ Use of SSMP........... Use SSMP to satisfy Yes........................... No.
recordkeeping requirements
for identification of
malfunction, correction
action taken, and nature
of repairs to CMS.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................. General Reporting Requirement to report...... Yes........................... Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................. Report of Performance When to submit to Federal Yes........................... Yes.
Test Results. or State authority.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................. Reporting Opacity or What to report and when.... NA............................ NA.
VE Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................. Progress Reports...... Must submit progress Yes........................... Yes.
reports on schedule if
under compliance extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).............. Periodic SSM Reports.. Contents and submission of Yes........................... No, see Sec. 63.2281(d)-(e)
periodic SSM reports. for malfunction reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)............. Immediate SSM Reports. Contents and submission of Yes........................... No.
immediate SSM reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)............. Additional CMS Reports Must report results for Yes........................... Yes.
each CEM on a unit;
written copy of
performance evaluation; 3
copies of COMS performance
evaluation.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................. Reports............... Excess emission reports.... No............................ No.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................. Reporting COMS Data... Must submit COMS data with NA............................ NA.
performance test data.
Sec. 63.10(f).................... Waiver for Procedures for EPA Yes........................... Yes.
Recordkeeping/ Administrator to waive.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11....................... Control Device and Requirements for flares and NA............................ NA.
Work Practice alternative work practice
Requirements. for equipment leaks.
Sec. 63.12....................... State Authority and State authority to enforce Yes........................... Yes.
Delegations. standards.
Sec. 63.13....................... Addresses............. Addresses where reports, Yes........................... Yes.
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14....................... Incorporations by Test methods incorporated Yes........................... Yes.
Reference. by reference.
Sec. 63.15....................... Availability of Public and confidential Yes........................... Yes.
Information and information.
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16....................... Performance Track Requirements for Yes........................... Yes.
Provisions. Performance Track member
facilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after September 6, 2019 must comply with the requirements in
column 5 of this table beginning on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] or upon initial startup, whichever is later.
0
23. Subpart DDDD is amended by adding Appendix B to read as follows:
[[Page 47113]]
Appendix B to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
That Must Be Counted Relative to the Plywood and Composite Wood Products
``Non-HAP Coating'' Definition if Present at 0.1 Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane............................. 79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane................................. 79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine................................. 57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane........................... 96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine................................. 122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene......................................... 106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene................................... 542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane........................................... 123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol................................. 88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)...................... 25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene.................................... 121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine................................... 95-80-7
2-Nitropropane........................................ 79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine................................ 91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine............................... 119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine................................ 119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)................... 101-14-4
Acetaldehyde.......................................... 75-07-0
Acrylamide............................................ 79-06-1
Acrylonitrile......................................... 107-13-1
Allyl chloride........................................ 107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH)................... 319-84-6
Aniline............................................... 62-53-3
Benzene............................................... 71-43-2
Benzidine............................................. 92-87-5
Benzotrichloride...................................... 98-07-7
Benzyl chloride....................................... 100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH).................... 319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate............................ 117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether................................ 542-88-1
Bromoform............................................. 75-25-2
Captan................................................ 133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride.................................. 56-23-5
Chlordane............................................. 57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate....................................... 510-15-6
Chloroform............................................ 67-66-3
Chloroprene........................................... 126-99-8
Cresols (mixed)....................................... 1319-77-3
DDE................................................... 3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether................................... 111-44-4
Dichlorvos............................................ 62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin....................................... 106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate........................................ 140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide.................................... 106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride................................... 107-06-2
Ethylene oxide........................................ 75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea..................................... 96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)............ 75-34-3
Formaldehyde.......................................... 50-00-0
Heptachlor............................................ 76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene..................................... 118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene................................... 87-68-3
Hexachloroethane...................................... 67-72-1
Hydrazine............................................. 302-01-2
Isophorone............................................ 78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers).......... 58-89-9
m-Cresol.............................................. 108-39-4
Methylene chloride.................................... 75-09-2
Naphthalene........................................... 91-20-3
Nitrobenzene.......................................... 98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine.................................. 62-75-9
o-Cresol.............................................. 95-48-7
o-Toluidine........................................... 95-53-4
Parathion............................................. 56-38-2
p-Cresol.............................................. 106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene..................................... 106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene............................... 82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol..................................... 87-86-5
Propoxur.............................................. 114-26-1
Propylene dichloride.................................. 78-87-5
[[Page 47114]]
Propylene oxide....................................... 75-56-9
Quinoline............................................. 91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene..................................... 127-18-4
Toxaphene............................................. 8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene..................................... 79-01-6
Trifluralin........................................... 1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide......................................... 593-60-2
Vinyl chloride........................................ 75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride................................... 75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-18827 Filed 9-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P